Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

Turkey

Mr. Bell: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the level of diplomatic representation of Her Majesty's Government in Turkey.

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Ray Whitney): We are represented by a resident ambassador in the Turkish capital Ankara with a full supporting staff.

Mr. Bell: Will the Foreign Secretary convey to our ambassador in Turkey the strong feeling, not only in the House but in the country, over the fact that 33,000 political prisoners are languishing in Turkish gaols, and that, by Telex to newspapers throughout the country, the military recently banned any references to an amnesty for those political prisoners? Given the fact that we are partners in NATO, will our ambassador in Turkey make the strongest representations to the new Government there about our great disquiet over the number of political prisoners in Turkey?

Mr. Whitney: Her Majesty's Government have steadily made clear to the Turkish Government our concern about human rights in Turkey, and this was last done by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State in Stockholm last week in his discussions with the Turkish Foreign Minister. We shall continue to make the Turkish Government aware of this concern. We welcome the fact that immediately on taking office the new Turkish Government declared that they were opposed to any action aimed at reducing basic human rights and freedom.

Mr. Hill: Should not the Turkish Government be further complimented on the fact that within the first few days of their office they have agreed to the holding of local government elections throughout the country, involving all political parties? Is this not a great step forward in democracy?

Mr. Whitney: I accept what my hon. Friend says. We welcome that development, as we do any further development towards the full restoration of democratic rights in Turkey.

Mr. Ashdown: Is the Minister aware that, as we approach the 10th anniversary of the Turkish invasion of Cyprus, there still remain 800 United Kingdom nationals

uncompensated for the losses incurred during the campaign, some of them for sums amounting to £10,000? As we participated last year in giving $32 million of aid to Turkey through article 113 of the Committee of the EEC, has not the time come for more strenuous representations to be made to ensure that these people are compensated?

Mr. Whitney: We have continued to make the strongest representations and have given support to ensure that British nationals in Cyprus are duly compensated. We regret the delays and continue to keep up the pressure.

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Are not Moslem countries which are parliamentary democracies extremely rare? Turkey suffered a period of ferocious political and civil violence, followed by a period or martial law, and it is now trying to re-establish democracy. Does not Turkey require and deserve all our help and support throughout this difficult period?

Mr. Whitney: I agree with my hon. Friend. We understand the problems that have affected Turkey over many years, and we commend the efforts that have been made, to put things right in particular, the elections that were held in November. We look forward to a continuance of the evolutionary process to restore democracy in Turkey.

Mr. George Robertson: Will the Minister remind himself and his hon. Friends that Turkey is a full member of NATO and as such should respect the central tenet of that organisation, which is respect for individual freedom? Is not the continual breach of human rights in Turkey utterly unacceptable? Will the hon. Gentleman make the strongest representations about the imprisonment of political prisoners, in particular that of Dr. Mahmut Dikerdem, the former ambassador, whose show trial was an affront to any normal standard of justice?

Mr. Whitney: We understand the concern that the hon. Gentleman has expressed, but I can only repeat that we continue to make that concern known to the Government of Turkey and that that was done most recently last week on 19 January, when my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State met the Turkish Foreign Minister.

Indonesia

Mr. Parry: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make representations to the Government of Indonesia concerning violations of human rights.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Richard Luce): We deplore violations of human rights wherever they may occur. The Indonesian Government are fully aware of the concern felt in this country at reports of human rights violations, particularly in East Timor. We do not believe that direct, formal, representations on our part would be helpful.

Mr. Parry: The Minister will be aware that more than 200,000 people have been killed in East Timor since 1975, following the illegal occupation by Indonesia. Will he ensure that no further arms are supplied to Indonesia until a ceasefire occurs, and will the Government also not supply arms that may be used to repress human rights?

Mr. Luce: There is varying evidence about the level of alleged abuse of human rights, and I am not sure


whether it is right to put a precise figure on that. I know that the hon. Gentleman takes a close interest in this issue, and, as he well knows, human rights is a major factor in considering export licences for any arms. I assure him that we take that very fully into account when any applications affecting, Indonesia come before us.

Sir Bernard Braine: Irrespective of the number of people who have been killed in East Timor, is my hon. Friend aware that there is concern among Conservative Members about the continued occupation of a country which has been denied self-determination, while at the same time we continue to supply arms to the Indonesian Government? What are the criteria for selling arms to such a country—whether or not it has friendly relations with the United Kingdom — without regard to what is happening about human rights?

Mr. Luce: I know that my hon. Friend also takes a close interest in this issue and I have discussed it with him. This and previous British Governments have at the United Nations supported East Timor's right to self-determination, and I am glad to reaffirm that. Human rights is a serious factor when considering applications for arms exports. I assure my hon. Friend that we take that fully into account.

Mr. Tom Clarke: Given the concern of Commonwealth countries such as Papua New Guinea and Singapore over Indonesia's current role, will the Minister give a categorical assurance that no Indonesian soldiers are training in this country?

Mr. Luce: There is no evidence of that so far as I am aware, but I shall have to confirm it.

Terrorism

Mr. Woodall: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if Her Majesty's Government will take further international initiatives to prevent international terrorism.

Mr. Whitney: We are committed to combating international terrorism and would indeed consider any new proposals very carefully. At the same time, extensive arrangements are already in existence, and our primary aim is to ensure that these arrangements work effectively.

Mr. Woodall: During his recent visit to the middle east, did the Foreign Secretary discuss the role of the Syrian Government in permitting Iranian suicide groups to operate within Syrian-occupied Lebanon, and did not the Syrians provide logistical support for the horrific terrorist attacks mounted against the multinational force in Beirut? Given continued threatened Syrian hostility towards Jordan, will the Minister reassure us about the safety of the Queen, who is to visit Jordan in March?

Mr. Whitney: My right hon. and learned Friend did indeed raise the terrorism issues to which the hon. Gentleman has referred. Syria has repeatedly assured us that it does not support particular terrorist activities. We shall, of course, make sure that all appropriate arrangements are made for Her Majesty's visit to the middle east.

Mr. Poctor: Do the Government need to take further steps beyond those contained in the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Bill which we shall

discuss later today, as that measure deals with international terrorists operating here and using the United Kingdom as a safe haven? Will he particularly look at developments on extradition which have occurred in the United States Senate Judiciary Committee?

Mr. Whitney: The Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Bill to which my hon. Friend refers is, of course, primarily the responsibility of my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary. However, I assure my hon. Friend that we are satisfied that the Bill, as it stands, will give proper effect to our serious concern about the need to combat international terrorism and that our legislation should be consonant with that objective.

Mr. Anderson: Presumably, the next convenient international forum will be the London economic summit in June. Will the Minister confirm that probably the most relevant area for progress would be that of the security of diplomatic personnel and premises? In the meantime, will the Minister press the French Government to ratify the European convention on the suppression of terrorism, as there is some sign that they may be more inclined to do so now as a result of their recent experience with the Basques?

Mr. Whitney: Previous economic summits have, indeed, provided a useful opportunity for exchanges between the seven Governments on methods of combating international terrorism. I expect that the London summit will provide another opportunity of ensuring that our cooperation in this important sphere remains as good as it should be. The answer to the hon. Gentleman's other question is that we have ratified a variety of international conventions on international terrorism, and we very much hope that all the other countries concerned will similarly ratify and give effect to those conventions in their national laws.

Argentina

Mr. Soames: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he is currently having with the Argentine Government.

Mr. Winnick: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement regarding relations with Argentina over the Falkland Islands.

Mr. Dubs: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if Her Majesty's Government now have any plans to seek to establish diplomatic relations with Argentina.

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Sir Geoffrey Howe): We are holding no discussions with Argentina at present, but we have made clear our wish to restore normal bilateral relations. We will not enter into talks about the transfer of sovereignty over the Falkland Islands to Argentina.

Mr. Soames: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that we are now in a position where we can be magnanimous? Does he realise that many hon. Members on both sides are disappointed at the lack of positive response to the news coming from the Argentine? Does he agree that we should seek commercial normalisation, at the very least, as soon as possible, and at least give some encouraging noises to that Government that we would welcome their participation in talks?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I entirely take the force of my hon. Friend's point. The message that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister sent to President Alfonsin after the election of the democratic Government in Argentina was intended to pave the way towards more normal relationships. It is clearly right for us to seek to do so along the lines suggested by my hon. Friend, and as I have said in previous statements, by seeking, for example, to begin improving commercial relationships between the two countries.

Mr. Winnick: With Argentina fortunately restored to democratic government, is this not the right opportunity, as the hon. Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames) has just said, to explore with the Government of that country all aspects of the future of the Falklands? Does the Foreign Secretary agree that the news that about £7 million of public money has been spent on the erection of just 54 prefabricated houses in the Falklands is just one example of the growing, formidable price that this country is paying for the present Government's policy on the Falklands?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The hon. Gentleman overlooks the fact that the Government have made it clear that there is no intention of embarking on negotiations about sovereignty, and that is compatible with everything that we have said and done about the Falklands so far. In those circumstances, it is right and proper for us to take prudent steps where necessary to secure the defence of the islands and their development. It is in that context that the houses which the hon. Gentleman mentioned were urgently needed, by way of replacement, and as accommodation for new personnel. The final cost for the supply and erection was high for a number of reasons, but the original contract price had been adhered to. I agree with the hon. Gentleman, as I have already made plain, that we should now look for ways of improving our relationship with the Argentine Government, and we should do that by concentrating first on those areas where practical steps towards agreement are most likely to be possible at an early stage.

Mr. Dubs: If the Foreign Secretary is sincere about improving relationships with Argentina, is not the establishment of diplomatic relations a necessary first step, from which better relations generally with that country will follow?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: It would not be right to contemplate the establishment of diplomatic relations unless and until there is a declaration by Argentina of its willingness to end the state of hostilities. However, the absence of such a declaration, as I have made plain, does not rule out the wisdom of looking for ways of improving our relationships. I emphasise that that process must start in the areas which are most likely to be practicable, probably in commercial matters.

Mr. David Atkinson: In the interests of establishing this sort of good will, is not the time ripe for the Government to renew their offer to the Argentine Government to facilitate arrangements for the Argentine bereaved to visit the graves of their relatives on the Falkland Islands?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: Yes, I am glad of the opportunity to do that. Since the summer of 1982 we have made it clear on a number of occasions, through the International Red Cross, that we are prepared to facilitate the repatriation of

the Argentine dead. That offer remains open. Secondly, we have made it plain that we shall place no obstacle in the way of a visit of the sort described by my hon. Friend by a bona fide group of relatives who meet the conditions that we have suggested and are prepared to go under arrangements made and supervised by the International Red Cross.

Mr. Deakins: Will the Foreign Secretary assure the House that immigration into the Falkland Islands will not be ruled out as a subject for discussion between the two countries?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I shall consider the point raised by the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Robert Banks: As the Secretary-General of the United Nations is charged with the task of seeking to bring about talks between ourselves and the Argentine Government, does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that this might be an appropriate moment to make our position known to the Secretary-General, to ascertain whether a dialogue could be initiated?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I think that the Secretary-General of the United Nations had our position made plain to him in the course of the work that he did before reporting to the General Assembly towards the end of last year. It seems that the right way of setting about this process is to seek to improve relationships through the intermediation of the protecting powers, and to move from that to try to establish a normal pattern of business between the two countries.

Mr. Healey: As the fortress Falklands policy, according to the Government's own figure, will cost the British taxpayer £2 million a year for the next three years for every family of Falklanders, and as much of that money is wasted through incompetence, as we have seen recently in respect of housing, will Her Majesty's Government show the same readiness to meet the democratic leader of the Argentine half way as they have demonstrated in offering to meet the Communist leader of the Soviet Union halfway? Will they undertake negotiations with the democratic Government of Argentina about the future of the Falklands without preconditions, as they have already undertaken negotiations with the Communist Government of China about the future of the 6 million people in Hong Kong?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The parallel which the right hon. Gentleman sought to draw at the end of his supplementary question is characteristically inappropriate. The fact that cannot and must not be overlooked is that the Falkland Islands were the subject of an unprovoked armed invasion, which took place a very few weeks after the Argentine Government of that time had been purporting to negotiate on the future of the islands. Having said that, it is sensible for us to be willing, as we have made clear, to seek a better relationship with the democratic Government of the Argentine. We have welcomed their election, but we must invite them to have some respect for the right of those who live on the Falklands to self-determination.

USSR (Human Rights)

Sir Bernard Braine: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what further steps will be taken by Her Majesty's Government to ensure that


the Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics comply with their human rights obligations under the Helsinki agreements.

Miss Fookes: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make urgent representations to the Soviet Government with regard to the detention in mental institutions of sane persons for political or religious reasons.

Mr. Fisher: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether there has been any improvement in the human rights record of the Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics since the Helsinki review conference in Madrid last September.

Mr. Lawrence: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what further steps Her Majesty's Government can take to ensure that the Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics carry out their responsibilities under the Helsinki agreement.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I regret to say that there is no evidence of any change in the Soviet Government's human rights record since the conclusion of the Madrid conference, whether in relation to religious minorities, treatment of individuals confined to mental institutions or in any other regard. But, together with our allies and partners, we shall continue to follow closely the Soviet Union's actions and take suitable opportunities to draw the Soviet authorities' attention to their commitments undertaken at Helsinki and Madrid.

Sir Bernard Braine: Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that the British delegation at the Madrid conference made strong protests to the Soviet representatives about the contined harassment of Soviet citizens who have tried to monitor infringements of the Helsinki accord by their own Government? Will he also say whether the opportunity was taken to make further representations to the Soviet authorites about the fate of Mr. Raoul Wallenberg, the brave Swede who saved 100,000 Jews from the Nazis and was imprisoned by the Soviets? They have declined ever since to say whether the man is alive or dead. Are not the world and Wallenberg's family owed an explanation of what has happened to him?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: Our delegation in Madrid took a number of opportunities to raise individual cases of the kind to which my hon. Friend refers. The case of Raoul Wallenberg was raised most recently by the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind), when he saw the Soviet Deputy Foreign Minister, Mr. Kornienko in Moscow last spring.

Mr. Fisher: Will the Secretary of State clarify the difference between his good words in the House and his actions? Did he take the opportunity to raise that matter when he spoke to Mr. Gromyko in Stockholm? If he did not do so, will he give an undertaking to raise it at their next meeting?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I did, indeed raise that matter. I have had two meetings with Mr. Gromyko, one in Madrid last September, and another in Stockholm last week. On both occasions I raised the matter in general terms and cited particular examples. As I told the House yesterday,

when I was in Stockholm I took examples of people whose cases were more serious because they were ill, such as Shcharansky and Bonar Sakharov.

Mr. Terlezki: Will my right hon. and learned Friend tell the House what the difference is, apart from colour, between a white Government prosecuting and oppressing black people, and a white Government oppressing and prosecuting white people? Should not the Gleneagles agreement, the Helsinki final act and the United Nations human rights charter apply equally? All of us should try to adhere to them.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: My hon. Friend has raised two questions which can be, and often are, linked together. It is right that we should not apply double standards in our approach to human rights matters in any part of the world, but it must be recognised that any action that is taken to repress human rights which is based specifically and exclusively on colour discrimination has an especially unattractive flavour to it.

Mr. Cartwright: I raise a matter arising from the Helsinki agreement. What steps are the Government taking to press for the release of Solidarity and KOR leaders, who are imprisoned in Poland and are threatened with political show trials?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The hon. Gentleman must understand that this sort of question arises in a number of contexts. In most cases, our formal status is very limited. We have to choose the right way and best way of making such points. We shall take full account of the hon. Gentleman's question as opportunities arise and as we consider our relationships with countries such as Poland.

Sir Peter Blaker: Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that the Helsinki agreement, which was freely accepted by the Soviet Union, declares that respect for human rights is an essential factor for peace? When, from time to time, the Soviet Union loudly declares its love of peace, would it not be worth while quietly to point that out?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. I made that point in the House yesterday and, indeed, I made it to Mr. Gromyko in Stockholm last week. If people are shown conduct of the kind with which the House is concerned in terms of human rights, it is bound to have an effect on their perception of their country's disposition towards peace and international relations.

Mr. Anderson: The Foreign Secretary knows from previous exchanges in the House that there is a bipartisan approach to human rights. We join the Government in their condemnation of the abuse of human rights in the Soviet Union. However, we wish that the Foreign Secretary would show that same zeal and enthusiasm for human rights in Chile. The Government recently abstained from voting at the United Nations on the issue of human rights.
Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman realise the close correlation between the severity of the cold war and the Soviet Union's tightening of the screws on Jewish and Christian dissidents and human rights campaigners? Will he accept that dissidents in the Soviet Union can best be helped by avoiding the Star Wars cold war rhetoric and getting on with the business of detente?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The Government take every appropriate opportunity to raise questions of human rights.


We have had exchanges in the House on Chile on other occasions, and I shall not go into that now. I do not believe that there is any simple connection between the international atmosphere and the way in which the Soviet Union conducts itself in such affairs. I wish that the matter were as simple as that. However, it is true that, for example, Jewish emigration was running at over 50,000 in 1979, but was below 3,000 in 1982. It is important to continue pressing the Soviet Union for an improvement in its behaviour in that respect and for an improvement in the whole international atmosphere, leading towards a dialogue between both sides of the iron curtain.

Gulf War

Mr. Latham: asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement on any recent initiatives taken by Her Majesty's Government to raise at the United Nations Organisation the failure of Iran and Iraq to respect Security Council resolutions calling for an immediate ceasefire in the Gulf war.

Mr. Luce: We shall maintain our efforts at the United Nations to try to achieve a ceasefire and settlement acceptable to both Iran and Iraq. We have urged both sides to respect United Nations Security Council resolution 540 and to make use of the United Nations Secretary-General's good offices in working for a negotiated end to the war.

Mr. Latham: Is my hon. Friend aware that that dreadful war has now been going on for more than three years, that at least 200,000 people have been killed and that nobody seems to be doing very much to stop it, or taking much interest in it? Why is the Security Council not in permanent session to try to implement those resolutions, and why are the diplomats not giving it a much higher priority?

Mr. Luce: I entirely agree about the seriousness of the war. It is now in its fourth year and there have been very heavy civilian and military casualties on both sides. It is of great concern to us and many other Governments that the war should come to an end. Considerable diplomatic efforts are being made to try to ensure that Security Council resolution 540 is implemented. The British Government are taking an active diplomatic part in that in the United Nations and elsewhere. We are doing whatever we can.

Mr. Ernie Ross: In pressing on countries the need to accept such resolutions, particularly in the middle east, is not one of the difficulties that one country, Israel, continually violates both Security Council and General Assembly resolutions? When it is suggested that other countries should concern themselves with Security Council resolutions, it does not help if a major friend of this Government constantly ignores them.

Mr. Luce: To return to the main point, the most recent resolution, No. 540, which was passed in October by the Security Council is a balanced resolution. That is what matters. It is fair to both sides and if the war is to come to an end, as everyone wishes, it should be pursued on that basis. We hope that the Secretary-General will be able to send his representative out, if there is enough common ground, to hold discussions and to see whether there is a way forward.

Mr. George Robertson: Does not the news today of the possible deployment of Soviet SS12 missiles in Iraq chill even the Minister's blood and diplomacy? Is it not time that we began a major diplomatic offensive to try to get both parties to adhere to existing United Nations resolutions? Will the Government continue to adhere to their policy of not sending arms to either side in the conflict, and include in that the military support ships now lying at Yarrow's shipyard, Glasgow?

Mr. Luce: Our priority is to do what we can, hearing in mind that we have only a limited amount of influence with the parties concerned. However, to the extent that we have it, we should use it. Without any shadow of doubt that is our priority. The hon. Gentleman will be aware drat we take a neutral position towards the war and do not believe that it is right to sell lethal arms to either side. We believe that all our efforts should be on the diplomatic front.

Nuclear Disarmament

Mr. Strang: asked the Secreary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what initiatives on nuclear disarmament he has supported in the United Nations in the past three years.

Mr. Luce: We remain committed to supporting, at the United Nations and elsewhere, initiatives from any quarter that are likely genuinely to advance the search for security through negotiated arms control and disarmament measures. Thus, over the past three years we have supported the United Nations General Assembly resolutions concerned with the prevention of nuclear war. the intermediate nuclear force negotiations and nuclear weapon-free zones.

Mr. Strang: Is the Minister aware of how appalling the Government's overall record is in opposing so many major nuclear disarmament initiatives at the United Nations? How, for example, do the Government justify voting against a motion for the prohibition of nuclear weapons tests?

Mr. Luce: I would say to the hon. Gentleman that he is absolutely wrong to suggest that the British Government have not been constructive in appraching the resolutions, not only in the last three years, but in the last year, that have come before the United Nations General Assembly. The criteria we adopt when we examine resolutions are whether they are likely to lead to a positive prospect of arms control agreements, and that means that they must be verifiable and they must be balanced. We look at the langauge of each resolution with those criteria in mind. That surely is the most sensible approach.

Mr. Wilkinson: Does my hon. Friend agree that, in the unlikely event of the French proposal for an international satellite monitoring agency under UN aegis being implemented, some of the first pictures brought back will be of continued Soviet SS20 launch site construction? Is this not a very serious matter and the sort of thing to which the United Nations should address itself?

Mr. Luce: I agree with my hon. Friend that verification is one of the key aspects of making any progress on arms control agreements, and any evidence of abuse of that in previous agreements does not help the process. What we must hope is that the Soviet Union will now fulfil what Mr.


Andropov is reported to have suggested, and that is that the Soviet Union would like to see progress in arms control. The most sensible way in which it can prove that is to come back to the talks in Geneva, and the sooner the better.

Mr. Healey: Since, according to the Foreign Secretary yesterday, Her Majesty's Government do not dispute the findings of the world's leading scientists that both the super powers now have at least 100 times more nuclear explosives than they could use without destroying their own people—never mind what those explosives did to the enemy — will the Government now support the demand of the overwhelmingly majority of the United Nations for a freeze of development and deployment of nuclear weapons so that at least countries cannot continue adding yet more dangerous nuclear weapon to stockpiles that are grossly excessive for any conceivable military or political purpose?

Mr. Luce: Of course the right hon. Gentleman is right. We all want to see an end to the escalation of the arms race. What really matters, if I may suggest this to the right hon. Gentleman, is not a freeze, but an actual reduction. This is what we have been proposing; indeed, this is what President Reagan has been proposing. If one goes for the policy of suggesting that we should have freezes, in many cases—in the case of intermediate nuclear weapons—one is ossifying an imbalance in weapons, in this case a monopoly on the part of the Soviet Union. There is, therefore, no incentive for reductions. What we want to work for is reductions, not freezing, of weapons.

Syria

Mr. Janner: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what improvement there has been in relations between the United Kingdom and Syria, following the Minister of State's visit to that country.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: Although we disagree on a number of issues, we seek to maintain a constructive dialogue with the Syrian Government. I had useful talks with President Assad and the Syrian Foreign Minister during my visit to Damascus on 11 and 12 January.

Mr. Janner: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman accept that it is essential for peace in the Lebanon that Syrian troops should get out of that sad country, along with the rest, which they have persistently refused to do? If so, did he express this view to President Assad, and what response did he get?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: We did, indeed, have a full discussion of the Lebanon, and we made it plain to the Syrian Government that the withdrawal of Syrian troops from the Lebanon is one of the features necessary to secure an ultimate settlement in that country. The Syrians of course take the view that their troops are there on a different basis from those of other countries. They have other difficulties, in particular in relation to the 17 May agreement. We pressed them and, indeed, have pressed others, not to let that agreement become an obstacle to progress. I urged the Syrian Government to be flexible over arrangements that would have to be made for the withdrawal of all foreign forces, including their own.

Mr. Walters: In his talks with President Assad, was my right hon. and learned Friend able to point out clearly

that Her Majesty's Government remain firmly committed to resolution 242, which calls for the withdrawal of Israeli troops from all Arab-occupied territory, including Golan? Will he do everything in his power to try to help to improve relations between Syria and Jordan, as that would play an important part in any subsequent peace negotiations?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: Most of my time with Ministers in Syria was devoted to the immediately pressing topics, geographically and practically, arising out of Lebanon, but I made plain the Government's view that the way forward to a settlement of the main Arab-Israel dispute had to be founded essentially on the propositions contained in the Venice declaration. I did not have an opportunity of discussing relationships between Syria and Jordan, but I note the point that my hon. Friend made.

Mr. Healey: Does the Foreign Secretary agree that now that the ceasefire talks have broken down for the umpteenth time and the talks for national conciliation between the various factions in the Lebanon have also broken down, in part because of American intervention on the side of the Gemayel Government, the time has come when Britain should take the initiative in organising the withdrawal of the so-called multinational force from the Lebanon?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The right hon. Gentleman must understand that the participants in the multinational force, together with much moderate opinion in the middle east, believe that the precipitate withdrawal, along the lines that the right hon. Gentleman has in mind, of the multinational force would be quite irresponsible. It would undermine the prospects of success for the Lebanese Government; it would damage the prospects of reconciliation there, and it would run the real risk of promoting a new outburst of bloodshed, which the right hon. Gentleman would be the first to regret.

Oral Answers to Questions — EUROPEAN COMMUNITY

America

Mr. Campbell-Savours: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next expects the EEC Council of Foreign Ministers to discuss relations with the United States of America.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): The Council discusses such matters whenever necessary, but at present has no immediate plans to do so.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Will the Minister impress on his European counterparts the need to put every pressure on the United States not to reduce its budget deficit, its PSBR, because that would only create further unemployment in America and greater unemployment in western Europe, particularly in the United Kingdom? Is it not fair to say that every time the British Chancellor of the Exchequer requests a reduction in the budget deficit of the United States he is asking for greater unemployment in the United Kingdom?

Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman has the unique distinction of being about the only person in Europe to hold that point of view.

Mr. Forman: Will my hon. Friend and his colleagues in Government take every opportunity at EEC Council of


Ministers' meetings and elsewhere to try to get agreement in the Community, and hence with the United States, on the need to avoid international economic warfare, whether it be through subsidies, quotas or any other mechanism? Is he aware that if the Government are serious about looking for public expenditure restraints, not to speak of cuts, we must remember that this country alone spends about £500 million a year on export subsidies and that if we were to get a satisfactory international agreement, that would be a saving well worth making?

Mr. Rifkind: My hon. Friend draws attention to an important matter. I agree that it is not only the responsibility of the United States not to introduce any new import restrictions. Her Majesty's Government argue strongly in the European Community that in seeking to resolve the problems of the Community we should not try to do so at the expense of increasing protectionism from the point of view of the Community's relationship with the United States or with other countries.

Mr. Ioan Evans: What initiatives will Ministers take regarding a reduction of the arms race and the possibility of suggesting some initiatives on nuclear disarmament? Do EEC Ministers support the initiative taken by Premier Trudeau in trying to get the five countries that produce nuclear weapons together to achieve a reduction?

Mr. Rifkind: As the hon. Gentleman will know, the EC does not itself take a position on defence issues. He will be equally aware that those European Community members who are also members of NATO strongly support the position of the United States on the disarmament negotiations and hope that the Soviet Union will soon return to the negotiating table.

Mr. Hordern: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Americans must be somewhat puzzled about what they should do to get things right, since they were first criticised for exporting too many dollars and now they are criticised for importing too much money from other countries? Could not the Americans easily reduce their overseas deficit by reducing the number of forces in western Europe? Does my hon. Friend agree that the Americans remain invaluable and trusted allies of the West and that we would do well to recognise that?

Mr. Rifkind: I unreservedly agree with my hon. Friend's final remark. I hope he shares the view that the presence of United States' troops in Europe is an important part of the defence of the West as a whole, and in the interests of the West and of the United States.

Mr. Norman Atkinson: Will the Minister reconsider his smart answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours)? Is the Minister aware that by answering in that fashion he proves that he is unique in Europe in that he has never read the valuable opinions of many European Governments who support my hon. Friend's view? Does he recognise that his answer has the support only of those conventional bankers who take the monetarist view which he and his Government support?

Mr. Rifkind: In the light of that supplementary question, I accept that there must be at least one other person who shares the view expressed by the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours). The hon. Gentleman must not use simplistic arguments. He must be aware that not only the present British Government, but

the Socialist Government in France, and other European Governments, hope to see a reduction in the American budget deficit because of the beneficial effect that that would have on interest rates around the world.

Council of Ministers

Mr. Neil Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next expects to attend the Council of Ministers of the European Community.

Mr. Fallon: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next expects to attend a meeting of the Council of Ministers of the European Community.

Sir David Price: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what further progress has been made at ministerial level towards an acceptable solution to the current budget crisis in the European Economic Community.

Mr. Skinner: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what further discussions he has had with other Ministers in the European Economic Community about the future of the Community; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Lofthouse: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress has been made to secure the conditions he outlined on 1 December, Official Report, c. 1014, before any agreement is considered to increase the Community's own resources.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress has been made in discussions on European Economic Community reform since the Athens summit.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I expect to attend the next Foreign Affairs Council which is due to meet on 20 and 21 February.
I attended the first Foreign Affairs Council under the French Presidency on Monday. The French Foreign Minister said that it was the aim of the Presidency to reach agreement on the main issues in the post-Stuttgart negotiations at the March European Council. The negotiations will be carried forward in a series of bilateral discussions, at a special meeting of Foreign Ministers on 18 and 19 February and in the Foreign Affairs Council as necessary. Specialist Councils will handle those issues which fall directly to them.
I stressed the need to make substantial progress in the hope of reaching agreement by March. I emphasised the need for detailed work to be done on the difficult issues in the negotiation: control of agricultural and other spending and budget imbalances, as well as the future development of Community policies. These issues could be handled separately in detail but needed to be drawn together so that decisions could be taken by Heads of Government on all the measures together.
I am arranging for a note on the other issues discussed at the Council to be published in the Official Report.

Mr. Hamilton: Will my right hon. and learned Friend be explaining to his colleagues at those meetings the growing impatience in Britain at the slow progress being made towards a solution to the budget dispute? Will he be announcing, albeit privately, that his freedom to


manoeuvre in negotiations has been limited by the growing opposition on the Government Benches to linking a solution to the budget problem to an increase in own resources?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I have made it plain throughout the discussions that have been going on since Stuttgart last summer that there is a need for urgency in reaching a conclusion to that agenda. I have made it plain publicly and privately that we are all impatient to see a conclusion of the negotiations so that the Community can concentrate on a wider range of business, including new policy. The fact remains that, as at Stuttgart, the question whether there should be an increase in own resources is connected with the proposition that we there laid down that there must be effective control over agriculture and other spending and an equitable financial arrangement, and that there can be no increase in own resources unless both those requirements are met.

Mr. Fallon: Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept the case for a clear distinction between the Council's legislative and deliberative functions? Can he reassure the House that progress has been made towards the completion of the internal market and the elimination of non-tariff barriers?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I think that there is reason to be impatient about the progress towards the establishment of an internal common market, including removing non-tariff barriers within the Community. I believe that it is important that we should press ahead with what are known as new policies in that respect and which are at the foundation of the original concept of the Common Market.

Mr. Skinner: Is it not ironic that, 11 or 12 years ago, when Britain was being taken into the Common Market by the last leader of the Tory party and the social dreamers who sometimes inhabit this Bench they did it on the basis of saving a sinking pound, rescuing the Common Market and solving all the problems of the Third world? After little more than a decade the Common Market is up to the neck in debt. The International Monetary Fund is cadging money from the United States. The Export Credits Guarantees Department is a busted flush. Right around the world financial institutions do not know how to find the money for 40 countries which are rescheduling their debt. Does it not prove to the British people that it has been a waste of time? What the Foreign Secretary ought to be doing is telling them—

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is unfair to other hon. Members.

Mr. Skinner: Has the Foreign Secretary got the question?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The hon. Gentleman has exposed a large number of propositions for brief examination. At the conclusion I must find that he is totally bankrupt of constructive ideas.

Mr. Lofthouse: Does the Secretary of State expect any progress at the meeting in March to which he referred? Does he think that, because the different sides are irreconcilable, there will be no progress? If this is the case, what will the Government's attitude be at that time?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: If there were to be no progress at the completion of the negotiations on which we embarked at Stuttgart, for the overwhelming body of opinion in the

House, and certainly in the country, that would be a serious state of affairs. I believe that overwhelmingly people recognise that progress, particularly in the economic field, depends upon our maintaining the coherence and cohesion of Community institutions. That is why, as I made plain earlier, we must emphasise not just the urgency but the importance of moving towards agreement on these matters at the earliest possible stage.

Mr. Taylor: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that some of us who have supported the Government—[HON. MEMBERS: "When?"]. Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that some of us who supported the Government last week in some unpopular but necessary measures to curb expenditure and to stop waste will feel let down if, in trying to solve the budget problem. the Government agree to vast additional public resources and public spending going into economic nonsenses, such as a Channel tunnel? Can my right hon. and learned Friend give us a clear assurance that there will be no question of the Government agreeing to increased resources, giving us in exchange a half share in a white elephant?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The linkage with an increase in own resources is with the two propositions I have already announced. We stand by the two conditions laid down at Stuttgart — effective control of agricultural and other spending and equitable financing. There are many reasons for being wary about the implications of the Channel tunnel. It is certainly something which I, for one, would want to consider very carefully before regarding it as a proposition to be accepted with enthusiasm.

Mr. Roy Hughes: When the Foreign Secretary meets the Ministers, will he be more mundane and convey to them the concern expressed in steelmaking communities throughout the country about the threats from the Common Market to make further cuts in our steelmaking capacity? Will he tell them that our industry has already been cut to the bone whereas other Common Market countries have not adhered to the directives of that organisation?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry emphasises that point with the utmost clarity at the Council when this matter arises. It is also worth reflecting that our membership of the Community has enabled us to obtain protection from some of the disadvantages of world economic conditions that would have arisen had we been alone. It is also worth remembering that one of the features which add to the problems of the world's steel community flows directly from the high level of the United States federal budget deficit which we were talking about some time ago—the high level of the dollar.

Mr. Jim Spicer: Following the free elections in Turkey and the restoration of a civilian Government, with the support of the vast majority of the people of that country, will my right hon. and learned Friend press for the restoration of all rights for the Turkish people under the association agreement when the Council of Ministers next meets in political co-operation?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I shall certainly take account of what my hon. Friend has said. As he knows, therewas some discussion earlier today about the balance between progress towards human rights and the current position in Turkey.

Mr. Hardy: Instead of preparing complacently platitudinous answers, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman reflect upon the fact that the principle achievement of the EEC in recent months has been the classification of the feathered hyacinth bulb as a vegetable?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am impressed by the hon. Gentleman's astuteness in observing that.

Mr. Bottomley: My right hon. and learned Friend was quoted on Monday as saying that the EEC was stony broke and in a state of semi-paralysis. Does he expect that state to be changed in any way by the Council of Ministers, the European Parliament or the Commission, and is there anything that this House can do to help?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: If we are to achieve the necessary reforms to deal with the problems which we have been discussing, the Commission, the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament all have a part to play.

Mr. Robin Cook: Will the Foreign Secretary try to achieve some sense of urgency? Is he aware that in time, if not in geography, we are now half way between the Athens and Brussels summits? If, as he says, the Community is in a state of semi-paralysis—a description more appropriate to the Foreign Office under the right hon. and learned Gentleman—why does he not admit to the House that there is no serious prospect of reaching any agreement which would justify his inviting the House to vote more tax resources for a spendthrift Community?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: If the hon. Gentleman had listened to my original reply he would know that at Monday's meeting I stressed the need for substantial progress, in the hope of reaching agreement by March, and that I emphasised the need for detailed work to be done. Throughout that meeting and many others I have done all that I can, as has my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, to stress the sense of urgency that is needed. If we achieve an appropriate settlement of the budgetary problem and a proper mechanism to control imbalances, Britain will pay less, despite an increase in own resources.

Following is the note:
Foreign Affairs Council 23 January 1984
Other issues discussed at the Foreign Affairs Council which met in Brussels on 23 January and at which I represented the United Kingdom.
In response to a suggestion from several member countries of the European Free Trade Association, the Council agreed to propose to EFTA that there should be a joint ministerial meeting in the margins of the Foreign Affairs Council to be held in Luxembourg on 9 April.
The Council reviewed the current state of the negotiations on a successor to the present Lomé convention, in preparation for the EC/ACP ministerial meeting in 9–10 February. There was a discussion of ESPRIT (European Stategic Programme for Research in Information Technology) and it was agreed that Ministers would consider the programme further at the Research Council on 28 February.
There was also an inconclusive discussion of energy measures. It was agreed that Energy Ministers should examine the proposals again next month.
At a ministerial conference in the margins of the Council a Community declaration on agricultural structures was presented to the Portuguese.

Budget Rebate

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what

specific political initiatives he proposes to ensure that the next summit meeting successfully agrees arrangements for the payment of the United Kingdom's budget rebate.

Mr. Willie Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress has been made in expediting the payment of the £457 million rebate due to the United Kingdom from the European Economic Community.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: We are taking the necessary steps within the Council to ensure that there is no obstacle to the bulk of our 1983 refunds being paid by the end of March as in previous years. If it is to act responsibly, the European Parliament should lake the measures necessary to enable the Community to meet its obligations and thus strengthen the chances of success in the present negotiations, and not take discriminatory and unacceptable action against us.

Mr. Bennett: My original question asked whether there was anything new in the right hon. and learned Gentleman's initiative. If there is not, how does he expect it to work this time when it has failed in the past?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: Urgency, and indeed novelty, are added to the present negotiations by the growing perception that unless they are brought to a successful conclusion the Community in its present form will run out of money. There are many reasons, well perceived by the parties to the negotiations, why a successful conclusion should be reached, and the sooner the better.

Sir Anthony Meyer: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that, however great the provocation, and however tempting the short-term advantages of reacting to the failure to agree on the budget by withholding our contributions, the United Kingdom stands to gain more than any other member country from the strictest application of the rule of law within the Community?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The United Kingdom wishes to see obligations upheld and observed throughout the Community. If the Community does not meet its obligations, we must take steps to safeguard our position.

Mr. Foulkes: Will the Foreign Secretary explain why the Government did not take the European Parliament to the Court over its veto on the rebate? Will he give an unequivocal assurance that, if the rebate is not paid by the end of March, the Government will take immediate action to withhold all or part of our contributions?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: It is our expectation that, as in previous years, we shall receive the bulk of the refund by the end of March. To achieve that we need regulations and transfer to the line of the moneys now in the reserve chapter of the budget. Steps are in hand to implement those procedures. The European Parliament can meet them by the end of March, and there is no reason why the money should not be paid then—

Mr. Foulkes: If not?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: If not, as I said in answer to a previous question, of course we must consider what action is necessary to safeguard our position.

GCHQ (Employment Protection Acts)

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Sir Geoffrey Howe): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I shall make a statement on the Government communications headquarters and the Employment Protection Acts.
As the House knows, the Employment Protection Acts contain provisions that enable the Government to except Crown employees from the application of the Acts. These provisions can be used only for the purposes of safeguarding national security, and reflect the acknowledged need for particularly sensitive functions of Government to be protected so far as possible from the risk of exposure or disruption.
Government communications headquarters is responsible for intelligence work of crucial importance to our national security. To be effective, this work must be conducted secretly. Moreover, GCHQ must provide a service that can be relied on with confidence at all times. It is clear, therefore, that the conditions envisaged in the special provisions of the Employment Protection Acts exist in this case.
The House will wish to know that, for these reasons, I have today signed certificates under section 121(4) of the Employment Protection Act 1975 and section 138(4) of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978, excepting GCHQ employees from the application of the relevant provision. The certificates have immediate effect and new conditions of service are at the same time being introduced at GCHQ. Under those new conditions, staff will be permitted in future to belong only to a departmental staff association approved by their director.
The very special nature of the work of GCHQ will be apparent from what I have said. The action I have taken stems directly from that. The Government fully respect the right of civil servants to be members of a trade union, and it is only the special nature of the work of GCHQ that has led us to take these measures. I can assure the House therefore that it is not our intention to introduce similar measures outside the field of security and intelligence.
GCHQ staff are being informed of these measures this afternoon. Those who decide to remain at GCHQ will each receive a payment of £1,000 in recognition of the fact that certain rights that they have hitherto enjoyed are being withdrawn from them in the interests of national security. Those who do not wish to continue to serve at GCHQ will be offered the opportunity of seeking a transfer to another part of the Civil Service.

Mr. Denis Healey: I found the Foreign Secretary's statement at once disturbing and perplexing. Government communications headquarters, of which I know something from the six years I spent as Secretary of State for Defence, has performed an indispensable service to the nation since the war by providing vital intelligence with an efficiency and dedication that is the envy of the world. It is not, like some other branches of the security services, a small body of professionals. It is a large industrial enterprise employing thousands of skilled technicians. Any of the very few offences against security that have been committed by members of GCHQ have been dealt with under the law, as in the Prime case not long

ago. As far as I am aware, there has been no industrial action for the past three years since 1981 by members of GCHQ.
The House must be told by the Foreign Secretary why the Government have decided after all these years to deprive GCHQ employees of rights that are enjoyed by civil servants in the Ministry of Defence and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, who are doing work of equal security and operational importance. Why is the Foreign Secretary depriving GCHQ employees of rights of industrial organisation that are enjoyed by employees of the royal ordnance factories and those in private firms such as Vickers and Plessey, who are doing work which is equally secret and equally central to the nation's security?
I wish to ask the Foreign Secretary two questions about how he took his decision. What consultations did he have, before taking his decision, with the elected representatives of GCHQ employees? Secondly, did he discuss his decision with the Security Commission which, although it was not set up specifically to deal with a broad question of this nature, comprises people with deep and long-standing knowledge of the work of GCHQ and whose impartiality would be accepted on both sides of the House?
I put it seriously to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that he has announced a very grave decision. I appeal to him not to implement it before he has consulted the representatives of the employees concerned and put the matter to the Security Commission for an objective judgment.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: Members of the Security Commission were not consulted. It is not a matter for them. They are normally involved only in cases where there has been a breach of security. Nor was there any consultation with the trade unions at GCHQ. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] It would not have been appropriate in such a matter to consult in that way. In parallel with my announcement, letters are being sent today to all GCHQ staff, and the non-industrial Civil Service trade unions are being informed this afternoon.
I appreciate the importance of the matter. That is why there has been long and careful consideration of the issue and, for example, of the need to avoid a repetition of the industrial action that took place in the three years from 1979 to 1981, which faced staff doing this work with a severe conflict of loyalties. Bearing in mind the need for confidence in the stability and reliability of the service, the Government have concluded that it is right to take these measures. It is right to remind the House that the provisions that I am invoking are already applied to other aspects of the security services and are contained in statutes passed by the Labour Government of whom the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) was a member.

Mr. Healey: I must press the Foreign Secretary on the questions that I put to him.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Would not it be more appropriate if the right hon. Gentleman did so at the end of questions on the Foreign Secretary's statement?

Mr. Healey: No, Mr. Speaker, with respect—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Very well, but this takes time from other hon. Members.

Mr. Healey: It is important that I put these points to the Foreign Secretary again. I understand that the two


branches of the security services that are disallowed normal industrial activity under the Act are MI5 and the Secret Intelligence Service, both of which are small bodies of professional men. The GCHQ is a different type of enterprise. In terms of its importance to national security, the secrecy of its work and its operational importance, it does not differ essentially from the Foreign Secretary's private office, the civil servants in the Ministry of Defence, the many industrial employees in the royal ordnance factories, and the private arms manufacturers, all of which are doing work that is vital to national security and intensely secret. All those employees are given the right of industrial organisation and they have not abused those rights, any more than have the staff of GCHQ.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The right hon. Member has moved on to different ground. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister told the House last year, the functions of GCHQ include safeguarding the security of our military and official communications and the provision of
signals intelligence in accordance with the requirements laid upon it by the Government in support of the Government's defence and foreign policies." — [Official Report, 12 May 1983; Vol. 42, c. 430.]
That being so we believe that confidence in the freedom of that service from intervention or intrusion is of the highest importance. It was after considering that matter that we came to the conclusion that I have outlined.

Dr. David Owen: The Foreign Secretary owes it to the House to tell us what relevant provisions of the Employment Protection Acts he intends to invoke. The House is also entitled to some greater explanation of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's objectives. If his objective is to avoid strike action in GCHQ, it is thoroughly desirable, but could it not better be achieved by negotiating a no-strike agreement? There is the precedent of the gas and electricity workers, who were members of unions but were bound by no-strike agreements. If the Secretary of State wants to exclude people from the system of complaints to the industrial tribunal, because of anxiety over the giving of evidence relating to security information, that could be done by revoking section 24 of the 1978 Act. Section 23 and others are sections that affect trade unions, but surely the setting up of a staff association is not in itself a guarantee that there will not be industrial action. Industrial action has been taken in the past by staff associations.
I understand the motives of the Secretary of State, but I feel that he has not found a way of carrying conviction with the more than 5,000 people employed at GCHQ—to whom over £5 million is now to be paid out. A better approach would be for the Secretary of State to explain to the House and to the establishment in question what the objectives are, and to negotiate a satisfactory agreement.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The statutory background is provided by the two sections that I have already mentioned to the House, which enable a certificate to be granted under the 1975 and 1978 Acts to allow certain Crown employees to be excepted
for the purpose of safeguarding national security".

Dr. Owen: From all the provisions?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: From the provisions of the Act —that is right. We are motivated, first, by the need to secure freedom from serious disruption and to remove the risk of strike action. I have been asked why that could not

be achieved by a no-strike agreement. Such an agreement could not prevent exposure to industrial tribunals. 'The need to prevent such exposure is the second reason for wanting confidentiality. Experience has also shown that in an organisation whose activities include intelligence work there can be problems if staff are members of national trade unions. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"]. That is why GCHQ management and staff representatives will he looking for other ways to conduct industrial relations.

Mr. Charles Irving: On a matter of such fundamental importance to a very large number of my constituents, I really feel that it would have been reasonable for me to have been informed of the statement in advance so that I could have had a chance to study it. The timing of the statement could not have been worse. Staff at GCHQ are already reeling under the imposition for a trial period of the lie detector, which is renowned for its failure rate. I hope that the Foreign Secretary will tell the House whether, in undertaking the fundamental removal of a democratic right, and de-unionising a large group of people, he is setting a precedent. Roughly 7,000 people in my constituency are involved. I should like to know, firstly, whether it is the normal accepted practice in areas of sensitive security to take such steps without the fullest consultation. Are those people who feel offended by this introduction to be guaranteed — [AN HON. MEMBER: "Get on with it."] I do not speak as often as the hon. Member. If he shuts up, I will be quicker.
Are job transfers to be guaranteed for those who object to this imposition? How long will the offer of £1,000 be open to those who decide to accept? I hope that the Secretary of State will agree today that, if I should require it, a deputation led by me will be received by him.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising a number of points that are important to his constituents. I shall certainly be willing to arrange to meet a deputation of the kind that he has in mind.
I assure my hon. Friend that the matter that I have announced today has no connection with the Government's acceptance of the Security Commission's recommendation that a pilot scheme should be carried out to test the feasibility of polygraph examinations. They will, of course, involve only a small proportion of staff in the security service at GCHQ.
In the first instance, the offer will be open until I March this year. It is important that GCHQ management should know as soon as possible which of their staff will be remaining and which will be leaving. We cannot say exactly how long it will take beyond that. Every effort will be made to transfer to other Departments staff who are unwilling to remain with GCHQ under the new conditions. GCHQ will continue to employ them while that is being done. Staff for whom it proves impossible to arrange a transfer to another Department will be eligible for premature retirement on redundancy terms.

Mr. Dave Nellist: It is called a blacklist, you know.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: Those who opt to leave, but for whom no alternative posting can be found, will be given a second chance to accept new conditions before they are considered for premature retirement.

Dr. John Gilbert: If there was no security leak worth reporting to the Security Commission


three years ago, why is it necessary to do this? Why are the GCHQ staff being singled out? Can the Foreign Secretary give an undertaking to the House that such measures will not be extended to the many other staff that my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) identified, who work in security intelligence?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: As I said in my statement, I can assure the House that it is not our intention to introduce similar measures outside security and intelligence. The step has been taken now only after careful consideration, to assure reliability, and freedom from disruption and intrusion which is of the utmost importance to retaining confidence in this organisation.

Mr. George Walden: Does the Foreign Secretary accept that while some of us may consider these measures to be an unfortunate necessity there is another side to the security coin? Will he give us an assurance that a close watch is being kept upon the size of certain diplomatic missions and organisations, and that where ceilings have been imposed they are being made to stick?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: That raises a rather different question, but my hon. Friend's point is certainly kept in mind.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: Governments do not usually act in this way unless something has happened. Has anything happened recently, or has any information been received, which makes it necessary to act in this way? All of us who are sympathetic to looking after this country's interests do not want to feel that the Government have acted just because something might happen.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: As I have already said, industrial action during disputes before 1981—[Interruption]—clearly showed the potential for serious disruption at this important Government organisation. It damaged confidence in the organisation's stability and reliability. We have taken this step after long and careful consideration of the matter. We should not be blamed for having thought long and hard before taking steps, but hon. Members do not seem to accept that.

Mr. A. J. Beith: Was there not widespread acceptance after the Prime case, not only in the House but among GCHQ staff as well, of the need for stronger security measures? Are not the staff bound to be worried when they see this step being taken, with no justification, at the same time as the experiment with the polygraph, which is based on extremely unreliable evidence, when what is needed is a great deal more money spent on employing people to carry out real and necessary security measures, such as positive vetting and perimeter security?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The hon. Gentleman refers to the polygraph "experiment", and must therefore remember that that is what it is. It is because of the anxieties that he and others have expressed that the Government have accepted the experimental use of the polygraph, which will affect a small number of people in the security service and at GCHQ. The reasons for taking this action are not connected with the experiment. They are reasons that we

have considered for a long time and that we believe are the duty of Government to act upon in coming to the conclusion that we have.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall call the hon. Gentlemen who have been rising.

Mr. Ted Leadbitter: Does the Foreign Secretary recognise that the House is at one in wanting to secure higher standards of security — that is not in question — but that his decision today has caused concern to hon. Members on both sides of the House? Will he accept that he must take this into consideration? Where will this decision stop? A precedent has been established. Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman assure the House that this process will not go beyond the present decision?
Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman recognise that in this country we are living under the conditions of a more secret society than any other democracy in the western world? Does he recognise that actions such as this will be counter productive and that there will be more leaks? As he has given a reason for taking this action that goes a considerable way back, will he tell the House, in reply to the question asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) whether there is any other reason?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: As I have already said several times, there is no other reason for the decision than that which I have announced. The hon. Gentleman began his question by saying that the House was at one in wanting to ensure security and secrecy. That is what this measure is designed to do, by maintaining confidence in the organisation. The House is rightly concerned, as are the Government. It is for that reason that we have considered for the length of time we have whether this action should be taken. We have concluded that to avoid the impact on confidence that will arise from the risk of instability and intrusion, this step is necessary. I repeat the assurances that I have already given, that it is not our intention to introduce similar measures outside security intelligence. I repeat also that this is not a precedent. The precedent lies in the statute under which I am acting, and under which action was taken by the previous Government.

Mr. Gavin Strang: Is the Secretary of State aware that he has completely failed to justify this fundamental attack on the democratic rights of civil servants? Does that not suggest that the decision reflects the Government's hostility to British trade unionism rather than any need to protect our national interests?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: It reflects nothing of the kind. I repeat what I said:
The Government fully respect the right of civil servants to be members of a trade union, and it is only the special nature of the work of the GCHQ that has led us to take these measures.
The hon. Gentleman could not be more wrong.

Mr. Nellist: Will the Secretary of State admit that this action begins a process of taking legislation on trade unions back to the 19th century, to the days of the Conspiracy and Protection of Property Act 1875, when gas and water workers—[AN HON. MEMBER: "Get back to Moscow."]—were banned from taking industrial action —[Interruption.] All right, all right.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has a right to be heard, as has every other hon. Member.

Mr. Nellist: Will the Secretary of State admit that one of two things must be true? Either in the past three years something must have happened which would prevent workers from joining a union and which he is trying to cover up, or his mental processes are even slower than we thought, so that he has taken three years to come to the decision? Which of those two things has happened?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: Had I come to the House within days, weeks or months of the last industrial action and said that I intended to take this action, the hon. Gentleman would have been the first to denounce the Government for taking such a decision at impulsive speed. Because of the importance of the decision, we have considered it carefully and come to this conclusion.
When the hon. Gentleman says that the decision takes trade union legislation back to 1875, he would do well to reflect that the provision we are invoking has been invoked by previous Governments. It is contained in the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978, passed by the last Labour Government, and in the Employment Protection Act 1975. That great charter of trade union freedom was meant to replace the Industrial Relations Act, and the powers under which we are acting today are to be found in that Act.

Mr. Alfred Dubs: Is the Foreign Secretary aware that his announcement is deeply disturbing to hon. Members on both sides of the House and that it will be seen by many devoted civil servants who are members of their appropriate trade union as an insult to them? In view of the significance of the important point of principle for which he has argued rather thinly, is not a full debate in the House the least that we have the right to demand?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: That is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, but I do not think that the decision will be seen by civil servants as an insult. We thought carefully about it, and several features were taken carefully into account before coming to our conclusion. I believe that the reason for taking the decision will be understood and welcomed by a number of civil servants who, when invited to take part in the previous industrial disruption, found the conflict of loyalties posed to them very uncomfortable indeed.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is the Foreign Secretary aware that throughout the ages all Fascists have used the cloak of national security and national interest to chip away at hard-won liberties and freedoms, especially those affecting the trade unions? What evidence is there that trade unionists are more likely to hinder national interests than those who come from Eton and Harrow—the belly of the establishment? How many shop stewards have betrayed their country? Almost without exception every person who has done so has come from the ranks represented by Conservative Members. Is it not time that this tawdry piece of propaganda was sent back to where it came, as it represents the march of Fascism in 1984?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: It is a measure designed to uphold the very freedoms that have been threatened by Fascism, not least by Fascism of a Socialist kind.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Exactly.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The evidence justifying such a provision on the statute book is the same as that which convinced the last Labour Government of the need to include these measures in the employment protection legislation.

Mr. Paddy Ashdown: Will the Foreign Secretary state categorically whether the Government have received any request from the United States Government that such action should be taken in the light of the continuing close relationship between GCHQ and the National Security Agency?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: There has been no such request, and that is not the reason why this decision has been taken. It is important to all of us that there should be complete confidence in the freedom of this institution from the risk of disruption and intrusion. That is why, after careful consideration, the Government have taken this action.

Mr. Healey: The Foreign Secretary's attempt to justify his action has increased rather than allayed concern. It clearly emerged from what he said that the only reason for such a decision is that between three and five years ago certain industrial action was taken by some employees at GCHQ. Many of us feel that someone made this proposal for many years. They could not persuade Lord Carrington to accept it, and they could not persuade the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East (Mr. Pym) to accept it. However, they found the present Foreign Secretary a pushover.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman told us earlier that this measure was intended to avoid disruption, although he admitted that it could well lead to a large number of employees leaving the service and the Government sacking others. He said that the advantage of the measures that he announced to the House—not for consideration—is that the Government would be able to victimise employees of GCHQ without their right of appeal to an industrial tribunal. We regard it as a shabby affair. We shall watch very closely what happens in Cheltenham, and we shall ask for regular reports from the Foreign Secretary on the consequences of this imprudent action.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The right hon. Gentleman knows that victimisation is no part of the purpose of this measure. It is a measure that exercises the statutory provisions that exist for the purpose for which they are designed. Certainly the Government would not expect or wish a large number of people to leave their employment at GCHQ for that reason. The purpose of avoiding risk to confidence and of diminishing the threat of industrial disruption or intrusion into this institution is a legitimate purpose that we have considered carefully over a number of years, and I have no doubt that it is a sufficient and right justification for the steps that we have taken.

Scott Lithgow (Debate)

4 pm

Mr. Gerald Kaufman: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I want to raise a point of order, of which I have notified the Secretary of State for Scotland and also the Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry.
Yesterday, in the debate on Scott Lithgow, the Secretary of State for Scotland purported to quote from a speech that I made in the House of Commons when I served in Her Majesty's Government. The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry, also purported to make such a quotation. Neither of them notified me in advance that they intended to refer to me — [HON. MEMBERS: "Disgraceful."]—unlike the Secretary of State for the Environment who, before he referred to me in the debate on the rate support grant on Monday, properly notified me that he would do so.
An extract from a statement I made and the answer I gave to a question in the House in February 1977 was quoted by the Secretary of State for Scotland in seeking to justify the Government's failure to assist Scott Lithgow. He quoted, totally out of context, part of a sentence which said:
It would be foolish to bail out yards that are not able to meet pricing and delivery criteria.
I say that the right hon. Gentleman wrenched that out of context, because it was part of a statement that I made in the House on that day, announcing the introduction by the Labour Government of a £65 million intervention fund for assisting shipyards to gain orders, and in which I said:
The Government are determined to emerge from this crisis with a substantial and viable shipbuilding industry with secure long-term employment prospects.
I also said, in reply to the Leader of the House, who was speaking for the then Opposition, that the Government were not looking for any reduction in capacity, and that
we refuse to accept across-the-board reductions in capacity for the British shipbuilding industry." — [Official Report, 24 February 1977; Vol. 926, c. 1653–55.]
So, contrary to the impression that the Secretary of State sought to give to the House yesterday, in my absence, far from advocating reductions in the shipbuilding industry, I was announcing unprecedented assistance for the shipbuilding industry.
Secondly, the Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry, said:
It was the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) who, when a Minister in the Labour Government, said, as my right hon. Friend pointed out today, that we cannot go on having one yard threatening the existence of British Shipbuilders."— [Official Report, 24 January 1984; Vol. 52, c. 819.]
I made no such statement, and it was impossible for me to make such a statement because, at the time that I made that statement in the House, British Shipbuilders did not even exist.
In addition, when I spoke on that day, quite contrary to what the Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry said, I stated:
Our aim is not to see how many yards we can close; it is to find the maximum numbers of yards that we can keep open." —[Official Report, 24 February 1977; Vol. 926, c. 1656.]

Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark: Weasel words.

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is unfair to have the debate all over again. The right hon. Gentleman should now bring his point of order to me to a conclusion.

Mr. Kaufman: Mr. Speaker, you make the very point that I seek to make. If I had been notified either by the Secretary of State for Scotland or the Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry, I should have been able to intervene in the debate yesterday and make clear —[HON. MEMBERS: "Why were you not here?"] I was not here because I am active in Committee on the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill, that being one of my duties in the House at present.
You very properly say, Mr. Speaker, that it is not appropriate to have the debate all over again but if I had been notified I could have been here to make it clear to the House that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Scotland was wrenching my words most distortedly out of context, and that the Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry was foisting an invention on the House.

Mr. Speaker: May I say, in answer to the right hon. Gentleman and to the House, that I hope that all right hon. and hon. Members will always observe the long tradition of giving notice of personal attacks. As to the contents of ministerial answers, or the contents of speeches from the Back Benches, I am afraid that I have no control over them.

The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen): Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. I think the House thrives on sharp controversy sustained in good faith, and it is buttressed by conventions. I understand the anxieties that the right hon. Gentleman has just expressed, and I shall see that they are conveyed to my right hon. Friends.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. Does not the practice of the House in regard to personal statements cover the predicament in which the right hon. Gentleman found himself, and would it not be a more effective and appropriate way of dealing with such a matter than a point of order?

Mr. Speaker: The House will have heard what the Leader of the House said.

GCHQ (Trade Union Membership)

Dr. David Owen: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 10, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the decision to deprive members of GCHQ of membership of a trade union.
The matter is specific, because it affects the fundamental liberties of well over 5,000 of our citizens. The matter is important because I believe that there are other ways of achieving the desirable objectives — a negotiated non-strike agreement, and exemption from the industrial tribunal provisions of the Employment Protection Act—while still abandoning any attempt to prevent civil servants from being members of trade unions.
The matter is urgent because, as I understand it, the action has already been taken without any consultation with trade unions or with the Security Commission—the body which all sides of the House have trusted on matters dealing with the GCHQ and many other areas of national security.
I believe that this matter will cause a great deal of public controversy throughout the country. It is better for that controversy to take place in this House, where the serious issues of security, the legitimate rights of security, and the protection of the security of this country can be properly balanced against the rights of individual citizens.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Nevertheless, he supports the action.

Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter which should have urgent consideration, namely,

the decision to deprive members of GCHQ of membership of a trade union.
We had a long question and answer period On the Foreign Secretary's statement, and I listened carefully to what the right hon. Gentleman said, but I regret that I do not consider the matter that he has raised as appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 10. Therefore. I cannot submit his application to the House.

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS for FRIDAY 10 FEBRUARY

Members successful in the ballot were:

Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith
Mr. David Amess
Mr. Richard Holt.

BILL PRESENTED

WORKING CONDITIONS OF GOVERNMENT TRAINEES (No. 2)

Mr. Dave Nellist, supported by Mr. Terry Fields, Mr. Tom Clarke, Mr. Gerald Bermingham, Mr. Eddie Loyden, Mr. Dennis Skinner, Mr. Roland Boyes, Mr. Tam Dalyell, Mr. John Evans, Ms. Jo Richardson and Mr. Dennis Canavan, presented a Bill to amend the law relating to health, safety and other working conditions of the trainees on Government training schemes; to make further provision with regard to conditions of employment and payment of such trainees and the responsibilities of the Manpower Services Commission to them; to regulate the terms of youth training schemes; and to establish the right to a job of trainees who complete the youth training scheme: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 3 February and to be printed. [Bill 88].

Social Security (Cold Climate Allowance) Amendment

Mr. Gordon Wilson: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for more equitable heating allowances to reflect increased costs of domestic heating in colder climates; and for purposes connected therewith.
Under present social security arrangements, allowances that are paid to cover heating costs are the same regardless of whether the recipient lives in Cornwall or Caithness —in other words, regardless of the severity of climate. In the wake of the blizzards which have struck Scotland and the north of England repeatedly over the past couple of weeks, while the south has escaped unscathed, it would seem redundant of me to invest too much of my energy in proving my assertion that the further north one lives the colder it becomes and, consequently, the more expensive it is to heat one's home to the same temperature. There is hard scientific evidence to prove that the further north and east one goes from the south-west of England the colder is the annual average temperature. Mainly because of that, the cost of domestic heating rises accordingly.
Professor Thomas Markus of the department of architecture and building science at Strathclyde university has had this to say:
In terms of air temperatures, wind exposure, rain, and available sunshine, the Scottish climate is significantly different from the UK as a whole. The difference between the west of Scotland and the west of England is in the order of 20 per cent. (in the amount of fuel required to maintain a given house temperature). Even within Scotland, the difference between Glasgow and Aberdeen is 10 per cent. This means that for a house in Glasgow, it would require 20 per cent. more fuel to maintain a given temperature than for an identical house in Bristol. Similarly, for the same house in Aberdeen, it would require a further 10 per cent.
When giving evidence to the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs on 23 March 1983, Professor Markus said:
The Scottish climate is significantly more severe than the English climate even if measured by the one characteristic of air temperature. If to this is added the relative lack of sunshine during the winter months in many parts of Scotland, the higher wind speeds and the greater incidence of rain, and hence of wet walls, then the overall climatic severity is significantly higher than in England by percentages varying between 15 and 40 per cent.
These significant differences are not at present taken into account in the payment of social security benefits.
Another indicator of the more severe climate in Scotland is electricity consumption. The Scottish Fuel Poverty Action Group stated:
Electricity consumption in the South of Scotland Electricity Board area is 25 per cent. higher than the English average and in the hydro board area the figure is 50 per cent.
The average domestic consumption of electricity in England and Wales in the year 31 March 1980 was 4,020 units per annum. The comparable figure in the South of Scotland electricity board area for the same period was 5,328 units. In the North of Scotland hydro-electricity board area, the figure was 6,678 units.
Most of the evidence is based on Scottish conditions, but I readily accept that there are gradations of temperature throughout the United Kingdom. The proposals that I am submitting will cover that. A study of the temperature statistics of the Meteorological Office's 30-year records and of isothermal charts drawn up by the Meteorological Office has enabled me to work out average annual

temperature belts in the United Kingdom. I shall rely on these figures when I come to explain my detailed proposals, which would ensure greater justice for those who live in colder areas.
It is a fact that fuel poverty exists and leads to hardship, hypothermia and premature death in some instances. Every year in the United Kingdom there is an unnecessary cull of the weak, the vulnerable and the aged. Among the over-60s, the death rate rises by 20 per cent. in the winter months. Among children under one year old, it rises by 40 per cent. Studies have been carried out in recent years to determine the extent of the risk of hypothermia among the aged. One such study was carried out in Glasgow in December 1980 by Dr. W. R. Primrose and Mr. L. R. N. Smith from the Govan health centre. I understand that 220 elderly patients within a practice were chosen at random and visited at home. Most of their living-room temperatures were found to be below the recommended level, which is 16 deg C. Thirty-four per cent of the sample were found to be on supplementary benefit and thereby in receipt of rent or rates rebate.
Another study entitled "Cold and Old" was carried out by Mr. Malcolm Wicks. It was observed that 9·6 per cent. of the sample were at risk of developing hypothermia. In The Observer of 16 December 1979, a former junior Minister of the DHSS, the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher), revealed that Department officials had suppressed independent research findings on the extent of hypothermia because they were politically embarrassing. The figures suggested a death rate of 35,000 old people a year from hypothermia.
The elderly are not the only group to suffer. Low-income families have to devote a much higher proportion of their household budget to fuel than average income families. In the parts of the United Kongdom which have the coldest climate, the suffering will be the more severe. It is hardly surprising that Mrs. Christine Davis, the chairman of the North of Scotland district electricity consultative council, wrote in September 1982:
We have argued, and will continue to argue, that the present system, which allows the same amount of money whether you live in Torquay or Shetland, and whether you have a choice of fuels or are in an 'all-electric' home, is not helpful in the north of Scotland where the winter is longer, the weather is colder and the money, accordingly, is shorter.
I turn to my proposals to deal with the problems that are faced by those living in the colder parts of the UK. Using the temperature data to which I have referred, I have divided the UK into four zones. For the exact boundaries of the zones, I have utilised regional or, in the case of England, county boundaries. Roughly speaking, the areas with an annual average temperature of less than 8·5 deg C make up zone one, the coldest zone. Zone two is based on the areas between 8·5 and 9·4 deg C, zone three from 9·5 to 10·4 deg C and zone four from 10·5 deg C upwards.
Zone one consists of the Islands councils, the Highlands, Grampian and Tayside. Zone two consists of the rest of Scotland, Northern Ireland, Cumbria, Northumberland, Tyne and Wear, Durham and north Yorkshire. Zone three consists of northern England, Wales, the midlands of England and East Anglia. Zone four consists of London, the south-east and the south-west of England.
There are basically three existing fuel benefits. First, within supplementary benefit there is a notional fuel element, which in November 1983 amounted to £7·95. Secondly, within family income supplement, there is a


notional fuel element. Thirdly, there are additional awards that are called exceptional heating additions, which are available over and above supplementary benefit at a lower rate of £2·05 and a higher rate of £4·05. These different rates are not related to climate. I am proposing that there should be a differential payment of these fuel benefits according to climatic zones. The basic levels of payment for both notional fuel elements and heating additions should be fixed for zone four, the south of England. Those living in zone three, the midlands and Wales, would receive 10 per cent. above the basic level. Claimants living in zone two would receive 20 per cent. above the basic level and those living in the coldest zone, in the north of Scotland, would receive 30 per cent. above the basic level.
Regional variations in the payment of heating additions are nothing new. Until November 1970, they were calculated regionally on the price of coal. My scheme calls for variations that are dependent on a much more constant factor, climatic severity. For justice to be done in the United Kingdom, it is necessary for the physical factor of climate to be taken into consideration when fuel-related benefits are paid. My proposals attempt to bring in such justice and I ask the House to take a first step towards this goal by giving me leave to present the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Gordon Wilson, Mr. Donald Stewart, Mr. Tom Clarke, Mr. Albert McQuarrie, Mr. Charles Kennedy, Mr. Archy Kirkwood and Mr. Dennis Canavan.

SOCIAL SECURITY (COLD CLIMATE ALLOWANCE) AMENDMENT

Mr. Gordon Wilson accordingly presented a Bill to provide for more equitable heating allowances to reflect increased costs of domestic heating in colder climates; and for purposes connected therewith: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon 17 February and to be printed. [Bill 87.]

Orders of the Day — Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Bill

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

Mr. Clive Soley: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I draw your attention to the selection of amendments? You have not selected amendment No. 38, and I understand that decision. However, there was considerable feeling in Committee about the international repercussions and importance of the matter. It was recognised that it would be difficult to amend the Bill without some repetition. Therefore, I ask you to rule that it will be in order to refer to amendment No. 38 when we debate amendments Nos. 34, 35 and 37.
Similarly, will it be possible for hon. Members to exercise discretion when referring to amendments Nos. 1 and 2, tabled by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) and others, which have not been selected but which could reasonably be referred to during the debate on amendment No. 43? That discretion would be for the convenience of the House.

Mr. Speaker: I regret that I am unable to readjust my selection, but I shall certainly allow reference to these matters if the right hon. and hon. Members concerned make them relevant to the amendments.

New Clause 1

SCRUTINY COMMISSION

The Secretary of State shall appoint a Commission of three persons of suitable qualifications and experience whose duty it shall be to monitor the operation of this Act and to report annually to both Houses of Parliament upon its working and effect.—[Mr. Alex Carlile.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Alex Carlile: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The House should bear in mind that there is no form of legal redress for those who are subject to exclusion orders. New clause 1 was tabled with that very much in mind.
I shall quote from paragraph 175 on page 68 of the "Review of the Operation of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1976", by Lord Jellicoe. He said in relation to exclusion orders:
It is in many ways the most extreme of the Act's powers: in its effect on civil liberties, it is in my view more severe than any other power in the Act; in its procedure and principles it departs more thoroughly from the normal criminal process than any other part of the Act; it has aroused substantial resentment even among many, particularly in Northern Ireland, who support the aims and content of the remainder of the legislation: it has led to criticism of the United Kingdom in the international fora on human rights; its value is difficult to demonstrate in a convincing way both for reasons of security and because it is the most essentially preventive part of the Act; and yet those ministers and police officers who have operated the system are convinced that exclusion has on occasions saved lives throughout the United Kingdom.
I shall refer, too, to paragraph 200 on page 77 of the noble Lord's review, in which he said:
I have concluded, albeit with some reluctance, that for the present at least a residual power to exclude must remain 
He went on to say:


I believe that the need for it is likely to decline still further and that it should be allowed to lapse as soon as it is no longer considered strictly necessary.
My final quotation from the review for the purposes of new clause 1 is from paragraph 178 on page 69, where Lord Jellicoe said:
My conclusion is that the power to exclude should remain available to the Secretary of State in extreme cases … that the possibility of abolishing it should be kept under regular review, without prejudice to the Act's other powers.
I am sure that hon. Members will find those quotations from Lord Jellicoe's review to be most helpful in their consideration of new clause 1. They make it quite clear that it is not merely my opinion, nor that of my colleagues, that the exclusion order provisions are extreme and well outside the normal judicial processes which we have all rightly come to respect.
The importance of having some form of regular review or scrutiny of the operation of such provisions is quite obvious. However, the problem that arises in relation to the views as to the need for the provisions expressed in Lord Shackleton's report, and in Lord Jellicoe's review, is that those opinions are expressed largely on the basis not so much of evidence as of the views and opinions of others. Even the most carefully prepared and expressed review by Lord Jellicoe is not founded upon anything which we would ordinarily regard as evidence, particularly in the legal context.
We on these Benches fully understand the problems that would arise if there were a court hearing for every exclusion order at which the subject of the exclusion order could discover not only the basis but the personal sources of the information used against him. The danger to those giving such information or passing it on would be great. Indeed, we know that to be so from what has happened to those who have informed and have been caught by, for example, the IRA.
In our view, a scrutiny commission made up of a small number of suitable persons could be set up and would be able to report to the House and the other place in 12 months' time. Upon a subjective examination of each of the cases it would be able to tell us whether it was necessary for a resolution to be passed, affirming the continuation of this legislation. When Lord Jellicoe said that the provisions should be kept under regular review, we may be sure that he did not think merely that people should float their opinions every 12 months without having the advantage of evidence to substantiate them.
A scrutiny commission such as that suggested in new clause 1 would allow for continuing and subjective scrutiny of each case by properly qualified persons. That scrutiny could be based on something which we all understand to be evidence and which, even in the broad legal context, would be understood to be such. It would be as near to a judicial procedure as is reasonable in the circumstances of such legislation, without affecting what we on these Benches certainly accept to be the necessity for confidence.
On that basis, I commend the new clause to the House.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Those of us who have been concerned with considering this Bill closely, and in Committee, have been struck by one of the difficulties that it presents. I refer to the combination, in a single Bill, of measures that are very different in

character from one another, and where the experience of their application and the importance of their retention might vary considerably. That may have been behind the thinking of those who tabled the new clause. However, they have not hit on the correct solution to that undoubted problem. After all, a task that hon. Members undertake is to interest themselves in legislation, to watch and to obtain information from the Government on the manner in which it is carried out and the experience that accumulates as it is applied. If hon. Members consult the written answers columns of Hansard during recent years, they will find a mass of information upon the application of the Act in the form in which it is at present in force.
4.30 pm
I do not think that, in order to cope with this problem, we need the assistance of an outside commission reporting to us once a year, quite apart from the difficulties of that commission looking into and, as it were, re-trying the cases that might have been dealt with under the various parts of the Act by the Home Secretary and his advisers. I think the difficulty is concentrated on the provisions for review of this legislation by the House that are to be found in clause 17. Although the House will not have the opportunity, owing to the all-wise decision of the Chair, of considering in detail certain propositions, I believe that they ought to be considered, and I want to make a suggestion to the Home Secretary for his consideration in the context of clause 17.
Clause 17 requires that the Act shall not apply for more than one year at a time without action by Parliament, and that action is set out in clause 17(2). The Secretary of State has to come before the House and seek approval of a statutory instrument, but the acid words are in clause 17(2)(a) which enable the Secretary of State by his statutory instrument to provide
that all or any of the said provisions … shall continue in force".
I am not impugning the sincere intention of a Secretary of State on these yearly occasions to consider whether he should call for the renewal of all or only some of the parts of the Bill. What I am pointing out is that the House will not be in a position to query or debate that decision. The House will not, of course, be in the position which it is with the Bill where it can take the provisions clause by clause and argue them upon their respective merits. The House will not be able, if it is presented with a draft order, to pick it apart, so to speak, and to say, "Well, part I has justified itself, but the evidence of the working of part II during the past 12 months indicates that part II, is no longer, upon balance, beneficial", or other arguments of that kind. However effective or well supported the arguments may be by evidence—in some cases evidence provided by the Government—of the use or disuse of those provisions, the House will still have before it, in the case I posit, an order that renews the whole Act.
The proposition that I wish to make to the Home Secretary is not that he should accept a new clause of this or any similar character, or, indeed, any amendment of the Bill as it stands, but that he should consider whether he can give an assurance about his intentions in regard to the renewal procedures in clause 17.
All Ministers are under considerable pressure from the managers of Government business so to arrange what they have to put before the House that it makes the minimum demand upon the time of the House. Nevertheless, I am


suggesting that the Home Secretary might utilise what appears to be his power under the terms of clause 17(2) to lay before the House not one instrument renewing the whole Act, even if he comes to the conclusion that that is what is required, but possibly two, three or four instruments that would enable the House to address itself separately to the merits and working of the different parts of the Act. If the Home Secretary were to take a kindly view of that suggestion, he would help the House very much and go far to meet the essential point that underlies new clause 1. It an acknowledged defect, of which we from Northern Ireland have only too much reason to complain, that the draft order procedure does not allow for anything to be removed or altered in what eventually comes before the House.
Having listened to the Home Secretary fairly frequently in Committee, I am sure that he will approach the future renewal of the Act not with a closed mind, with the attitude, "Well, there is the Act; let us go on with it as it stands for another year." I am sure that he is quite genuine in having provided himself, in the subsection to which I have referred, with the means of jettisoning portions of the Bill that in his judgment, and upon advice, are no longer justifiable on the statute book.
What I am putting to the Home Secretary is that even if, in his judgment, all parts of the Bill ought to be given another 12 months of life, he should enable the House, when he comes before it with a proposal, to consider separately and, if it can, to make a valid case against parts of the Bill which to a large extent do not cohere and are not interdependent with one another.
I hope that that suggestion will in some form commend itself to the Home Secretary, and that he will reasssure the House that, even if there is to be a proposal for the future renewal of the Act, it will be made in a form that will enable the House to form, to express and, if necessary, to record by vote a differing view upon the justification for the different sections of the Act.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: I have a good deal of sympathy with the view expressed by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) that the Bill in the form in which it has emerged from the Committee does not allow for separate consideration of constituent parts of the Bill. It does not enable the House to pass judgment on the individual components of the legislation.
When the House of Commons seeks to abridge the fundamental rights and freedoms of the citizen, as it has done in introducing this legislation, it obviously does so for weighty reasons, and only for weighty reasons. It is therefore incumbent upon hon. Members to consider whether the reasons that led to the introduction of the Bill remain or whether the Bill should be altered in any way in the light of experience.
That was the view expressed by Lord Jellicoe in his report in February last year. In dealing with this problem he specifically stated that he did not believe that continuing scrutiny by Parliament would best be achieved by subordinate legislation. He spoke of the need for annual renewal by primary legislation. In paragraph 14 of his report Lord Jellicoe said:
I am sure that Parliament should be given a genuine opportunity from time to time to consider coolly whether the legislation really needs to remain in force and, if so, whether it requires amendment in the light of changes in the terrorist. In my view both these aims would best be achieved through a

requirement for periodic full re-enactment by Parliament. I recommend, therefore, that the Prevention of Terrorism Act should require annual renewal as at present but should have a maximum life span of five years, without the possibility of further extension.
Lord Jellicoe was right, and the purposes which my hon. Friends and I—and the right hon. Member for Down, South— have in mind would best have been met had Lord Jellicoe's advice been accepted by the Government.
The provisions of clause 17(2) (a) and (b)—(a) in particular—to which the right hon. Member for Down, South referred are somewhat novel. When he replies to the debate the Minister may wish to tell us how, in the event of a statutory instrument being laid by him which would modify the provisions, he would propose to put before the House, in advance of the one and a half hour debate which would no doubt be necessary, the considerations which had led to such an important change in the law being necessary.
When Parliament decides how to respond to such a proposal from the Secretary of State relating to the powers necessary effectively to combat the threat of terrorism, we should be better informed than we can be by way of answers provided by Ministers at the Home Office; answers which are necessarily of a statistical nature and cannot contain argument.
As the right hon. Member for Down, South said, hon. Members can obtain a good deal of information about the operation of the legislation, and I do not complain about that. However, we cannot, by means of probing questions, obtain a full understanding of how, in practice. these somewhat draconian provisions are being operated and what is the judgment of those who are operating them as to their effectiveness, the extent to which they may be counter-productive and whether they should be modified.

Mr. K. Harvey Proctor: I fail to see how the provisions of clause 17 differ from the recommendation of Lord Jellicoe which the hon. Gentleman read to the House. There is a yearly provision for renewal which comes before both Houses of Parliament and the clause states that this legislation
shall cease to have effect at the end of the period of five years".
How does what the hon. Gentleman is suggesting differ from what is in the clause?

Mr. Maclennan: Perhaps Lord Jellicoe's recommendation was not as clear as I had understood it to be. The suggestion that there should be full re-enactment does not imply that it should be by way of statutory instrument. Lord Jellicoe made it plain that he was talking about full parliamentary scrutiny. Earlier in the passage to which I referred he said that
the renewal debates have not on the whole received the parliamentary time which they merit.
He was speaking of precisely the statutory instrument procedure which he was calling into question, and he added:
There have been exceptions, but in the Commons they tend to be held late at night and to last no more than ninety minutes or so, and in the Lords they can be even briefer and more perfunctory.
He went on:
I am sure that Parliament should be given a genuine opportunity from time to time to consider coolly whether the legislation really needs to remain in force".
Having read that passage from the Jellicoe report, I shall not weary the House by repeating it.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. David Waddington): Perhaps I can help the hon. Gentleman. The penultimate sentence in paragraph 14 of the Jellicoe report contains the actual recommendation:
I recommend, therefore, that the Prevention of Terrorism Act should require annual renewal as at present
and that is precisely what will happen.

Mr. Maclennan: The hon. and learned Gentleman's intervention shows that Lord Jellicoe's recommendation was perhaps less clear than I had understood it to be. However, I have no doubt that Lord Jellicoe was recommending that primary legislation should be reintroduced annually, but that it should not outlast the five-year period. Indeed, all the criticisms that he made in paragraph 14 were about the procedure concerning subordinate legislation.
I come to the considerations that would move the minds of hon. Members in the event of the Secretary of State making orders, and it must be said that the information on which the judgment of the House could be made is, as things stand, too limited. There should be men and women of the highest experience and independence who would be able in a continuous way to scrutinise the operation of the measure. The House would value the evidence which such a commission would give. The House entrusts the Secretary of State with these exceptional powers only with the greatest reluctance, recognising their necessity, but if they are to affect the fundamental rights and freedoms of the citizen in the way that the Bill proposes, it is clear that there must be continuing observation of how the measure is working.

Mr. David Ashby: rose—

Mr. Maclennan: I have given way enough. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity to make his own speech.
It is important to demonstrate that the measure is under scrutiny. If there is any doubt in the minds of the individuals who carry out the task, that doubt should be reported to the House. There is sometimes too great a reluctance by the Government—I do not speak only of the present Government— to submit their workings to the close scrutiny which a measure of this sort should have. It is clearly not possible for hon. Members, in matters touching the security of the nation, to probe in depth. Therefore, the people whom one would have in mind to whom to entrust the task would be senior Privy Councillors and those with experience of the operation of security, people in whom the House would have total confidence — the type of confidence that led to the establishment of the review conducted by Lord Jellicoe. Such a step would greatly assist the House in considering, as it will from time to time, whether such provisions are necessary.
While what we propose may not be quite what the right hon. Member for Down, South would favour, it would assist in enabling hon. Members to formulate their response to any suggestion that the measure should be amended or extended, and our future deliberations would be informed by the weighty judgments of the kind of people whom we hope the Government would appoint.

Mr. Soley: I understand what the Liberal party is trying to achieve, but my understanding is not as a result of the

speech by the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan). If the hon. Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) is seeking to achieve a judicial aspect for exclusion orders, he should support new clause 2. His new clause covers the whole Act and does not provide a judicial review or anything remotely resembling it.
The need is for better statistics and I should like the Government to make a major effort to provide them, particularly in relation to Northern Ireland. I should also be happy to consider the possibility of a Select Committee being set up to consider the operation of the Act or a special Committee of the House to act as a watchdog over the security services. That would be useful and positive.
My main reservation about the new clause is that it is weak and inadequate. That is why we cannot support it. The House is sometimes tempted, particularly on the advice of the Liberal party, to put barriers between the people whom we seek to represent and the House. The House of Commons was set up initially to protect, defend and enhance civil liberties. What on earth are we doing trying to set up a commission to do our work for us, to tell us what to do while we trot into the Lobbies, put up our hands and say yes or no? We must do the work.
In a way, the House has failed, particularly in the last 10 or 15 years, to be an effective defender of the civil liberties and democratic forums that the House was established to protect. It is not enough to set up a commission of wise people. Who will select the wise people? Will they be Liberals chosen to protect Liberal values? Who will decide on the values? For what interests will they speak?
Hon. Members are elected, and one of their primary purposes is to defend and enhance civil liberties. The new clause undermines that purpose. I accept that that is not intended and that Liberal Members have good intentions. I am not saying that they are trying to put back the clock or work a trick, but I believe that they have not understood the logic of our constitutional position. We are here as the first and last defenders of the people's rights. If we dodge that, duck our responsibilities and pass them to others, not only do we do a diservice to those people, but we undermine and betray the purposes for which the House exists.

Mr. Carlile: Is the hon. Member really saying that the House is abdicating its responsibility when it considers, for example, the advice of the Director General of Fair Trading or anyone else appointed by statute to consider the workings of an Act? If he is saying that, his view is insupportable and I do not understand it.

Mr. Soley: The hon. Member must understand the fundamental difference between this Act and fair trading. We are talking not about fair trading, but about whether people should be excluded from one part of the United Kingdom. We are not talking about the price of a packet of tea.

Mr. Waddington: If press reports are correct, later tonight the public will be gasping with astonishment at the spectacle of a Labour party which apparently still aspires to government voting against a measure which it has supported consistently for eight years, after having introduced it. The public will not be surprised if we all express our reluctance that a measure such as this should


remain on the statute book for a moment longer than necessary. Therefore, I fully understand the view of the hon. Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile).
In his review of the 1976 Act, Lord Jellicoe addressed himself particularly to the need to scrutinise exceptional powers. In paragraph 14 of his report, he said:
if the terrorist scene is an evolving one, then legislation enacted to deal with the situation at one period may well need substantial amendment by Parliament in the light of changing circumstances. The Prevention of Terrorism Act rightly contains provision for annual renewal by order, subject to the affirmative resolution of both Houses of Parliament … I am sure that Parliament should be given a genuine opportunity from time to time to consider coolly whether the legislation really needs to remain in force and, if so, whether it requires amendment in the light of changes in the terrorist. In my view both these aims would best be achieved through a requirement for periodic full re-enactment by Parliament.
Later, in paragraph 17, Lord Jellicoe considered the question of reviewing the legislation before re-enactment. If that takes place it will not normally take place for five years. Lord Jellicoe examined particularly the procedures for considering possible amendments to the Armed Forces Act and concluded that a similar procedure could profitably be adapted and applied to the prevention of terrorism legislation. He said that he did not think that the taking of evidence by a Select Committee would be appropriate.
The Government have accepted the recommendation that the legislation should have a limited life. That is incorporated in clause 17(3). We believe that the Secretary of State of the day should decide, when the time for re-enactment approaches, how best to respond to Lord Jellicoe's general recommendation about review. I stress that he made no firm recommendation about the form that such a review might take. He certainly made no suggestion remotely resembling that suggested by the Liberal party.
The hon. Member for Montgomery referred almost entirely to exclusion powers, but the Bill deals with much more than that. The new clause also deals with much more than exclusion.
I listened carefully to the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell). My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary is in the Chamber. The right hon. Gentleman asked him to consider laying more than one instrument before Parliament at the end of a year, so that Parliament can make a decision about whether separate parts of the Act, rather than the whole, might be renewed. We shall consider that suggestion seriously. We inserted in the Bill the words "all or any". Those words were the subject of an amendment tabled by the right hon. Member for Down, South and they are intended to convey as strongly as possible that two separate options are open to the Government—to renew in toto or to renew in part.
I shall not repeat what I said in an intervention when the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) was speaking. The position is plain. Lord Jellicoe recommended annual renewal as at present, but that at the end of each five years the Act should lapse and that we should therefore have to relegislate so that each part of that legislation can be fully considered. That seems to be a sensible recommendation and an important safeguard. That is why we incorporated it in the Bill.
I agree with the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) about the inappropriateness of the proposal in the new clause, and I advise the House to reject it.

5 pm

Mr. Alex Carlile: I accept the suggestion of the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) in relation to clause 17(2)(a) as being constructive and appropriate, but with great respect to the right hon. Gentleman I think that his suggestion and what is contained in new clause 1 are not mutually exclusive but can be properly regarded as complementary. To rely upon questions asked in the House and, even more, to rely upon answers given to questions asked in the House for the purpose of reviewing the operation of such an important piece of legislation, affecting the rights of the individual, would be extraordinarily haphazard, entirely inappropriate and about as inept a form of scrutiny as one could imagine.
The Minister of State referred to the fact that in moving the new clause I spoke only of exclusion orders. That is right, because I regard the scrutiny commission as having the most important role in relation to exclusion orders. Of course, the scrutiny commission would also be concerned with the way in which the power of arrest was exercised and the way in which detainees were detained. It is most important to bear in mind that each year when these provisions come before the House and the other place for approval, if that is what is asked for by the Government, not only the Home Secretary, the Minister of State and a small coterie need to be informed of the way in which the Act has been operating and the way in which the provisions have been applied; Back Benchers also need to be informed, so that their approval or disapproval of the continuation of the provisions is based upon evidence and so that they make a proper decision instead of relying on the recommendation of a small body of people, founded upon inadequate evidence.
As for the criticisms of the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley), his assessment of the constitutional position of the House shows a somewhat inadequate knowledge of history. I was reminded that the constitutional and historical position is that the House was originally created for the purpose of levying taxation and for no other reason. My hon. Friend and I shall not be supporting new clause 2 because it is obvious, if one examines it, that it raises security problems which could be damaging for the individual. I can only conclude that the Labour party is not prepared to support this new clause because the hon. Member for Hammersmith did not think of it himself.

Mr. Soley: That is an insult.

Mr. Carlile: I hope that the House will take a view other than that of the hon. Gentleman.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time

The House divided: Ayes 19, Noes 228.

Division No. 138]
[5.3 pm


AYES


Alton, David
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Ashdown, Paddy
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Bruce, Malcolm
Wainwright, R.


Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)
Wallace, James


Freud, Clement
Wigley, Dafydd


Howells, Geraint
Wilson, Gordon


Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)



Kirkwood, Archibald
Tellers for the Ayes:


Maclennan, Robert
Mr. A. J. Beith and


Meadowcroft, Michael
Mr. John Cartwright.


Penhaligon, David







NOES


Adley, Robert
Hordern, Peter


Alexander, Richard
Howard, Michael


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)


Arnold, Tom
Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)


Ashby, David
Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)


Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.
Hubbard-Miles, Peter


Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)
Hunt, David (Wirral)


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Batiste, Spencer
Hunter, Andrew


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Irving, Charles


Beggs, Roy
Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick


Bellingham, Henry
Jessel, Toby


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Johnson-Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Body, Richard
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Jones, Robert (W Herts)


Bottomley, Peter
Key, Robert


Braine, Sir Bernard
Knight, Gregory (Derby N)


Bright, Graham
Knight, Mrs Jill (Edgbaston)


Brittan, Rt Hon Leon
Knowles, Michael


Buck, Sir Antony
Knox, David


Budgen, Nick
Lang, Ian


Burt, Alistair
Latham, Michael


Butcher, John
Lawler, Geoffrey


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Lee, John (Pendle)


Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (W'ton S)
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Chapman, Sydney
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Lester, Jim


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)


Clegg, Sir Walter
Lightbown, David


Cockeram, Eric
Lilley, Peter


Colvin, Michael
Lloyd, Ian (Havant)


Coombs, Simon
Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)


Couchman, James
Luce, Richard


Cranborne, Viscount
McCrea, Rev William


Crouch, David
McCurley, Mrs Anna


Currie, Mrs Edwina
McCusker, Harold


Dicks, T.
Macfarlane, Neil


Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)
MacGregor, John


Eggar, Tim
MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)


Eyre, Sir Reginald
Maclean, David John.


Favell, Anthony
Macmillan, Rt Hon M.


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
McQuarrie, Albert


Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
Maginnis, Ken


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Major, John


Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)
Malins, Humfrey


Fox, Marcus
Malone, Gerald


Freeman, Roger
Maples, John


Gale, Roger
Marland, Paul


Galley, Roy
Marlow, Antony


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Glyn, Dr Alan
Mates, Michael


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Mather, Carol


Goodlad, Alastair
Maude, Francis


Gow, Ian
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Gregory, Conal
Mayhew, Sir Patrick


Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)
Merchant, Piers


Ground, Patrick
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Grylls, Michael
Miller, Hal (B'grove)


Gummer, John Selwyn
Mills, Iain (Meriden)


Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)
Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Miscampbell, Norman


Hampson, Dr Keith
Mitchell, David (NW Hants)


Hanley, Jeremy
Moate, Roger


Hargreaves, Kenneth
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Harvey, Robert
Montgomery, Fergus


Haselhurst, Alan
Morris, M. (N'hampton, S)


Hawkins, C. (High Peak)
Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)


Hayes, J.
Mudd, David


Hayward, Robert
Murphy, Christopher


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Nicholls, Patrick


Henderson, Barry
Norris, Steven


Hicks, Robert
Onslow, Cranley


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Oppenheim, Philip


Hill, James
Osborn, Sir John


Hind, Kenneth
Ottaway, Richard


Hirst, Michael
Page, John (Harrow W)


Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)
Page, Richard (Herts SW)


Holt, Richard
Pawsey, James


Hooson, Tom
Pollock, Alexander





Porter, Barry
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)


Powell, Rt Hon J. E. (S Down)
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Powell, William (Corby)
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Powley, John
Sumberg, David


Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Terlezki, Stefan


Proctor, K. Harvey
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Raffan, Keith
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Rathbone, Tim
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


Renton, Tim
Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)


Rhodes James, Robert
Thornton, Malcolm


Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Tracey, Richard


Robinson, Mark (N'port W)
Trotter, Neville


Roe, Mrs Marion
Twinn, Dr Ian


Rossi, Sir Hugh
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Rost, Peter
Viggers, Peter


Rumbold, Mrs Angela
Waddington, David


Ryder, Richard
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Sackville, Hon Thomas
Walden, George


Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
Waller, Gary


Sayeed, Jonathan
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Watson, John


Shelton, William (Streatham)
Watts, John


Silvester, Fred
Wells, Bowen (Hertford)


Sims, Roger
Wheeler, John


Skeet, T. H. H.
Whitney, Raymond


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Wiggin, Jerry


Smyth, Rev W. M. (Belfast S)
Wilkinson, John


Soames, Hon Nicholas
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Speller, Tony
Winterton, Nicholas


Spence, John
Wolfson, Mark


Spencer, D.
Woodcock, Michael


Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)
Yeo, Tim


Squire, Robin
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Stanbrook, Ivor



Stanley, John
Tellers for the Noes:


Steen, Anthony
Mr. Douglas Hogg and


Stern, Michael
Mr. Michael Neubert.

Question accordingly negatived.

New Clause 2

POWERS OF REMOVAL

'(1) Where the Secretary of State decides not to revoke an exclusion order, the person to be excluded may apply within 30 days to an Exclusion Tribunal for an order that the exclusion order be revoked.

(2)(a) the Exclusion Tribunal shall consist of three High Court Judges. It shall have the power to revoke or confirm the exclusion order. It shall hear representations and evidence, by or on behalf of the Secretary of State, and representation and evidence by or on behalf of the person to be excluded under the order,
(b) the Secretary of State shall inform the person to be excluded in advance of the reasons for the order and of the evidence against him,
(c) the person to be excluded shall have the right to legal representation and to legal aid.

(3) Where:—

(a) an exclusion order has been made against a person, and
(b) notice of the making of the order has been served upon him the Secretary of State may have him removed from Great Britain, Northern Ireland or the United Kingdom as the case may be—

(i) if he consents;
(ii) if the period mentioned in subsection (4) of section 7 above has expired and he has not made representations relating to the matter in accordance with that section; or
(iii) if he has made such representations but the Secretary of State has notified him that he has decided not to revoke the order and thirty days have elapsed without an application having been made to the Exclusion Tribunal, or if such application has been made, it has been determined by the order being confirmed.

(4) A person the subject of an exclusion order may, after one year has elapsed from the making of the order, or after one year has elapsed from any proceeding consideration of the exclusion order by the Exclusion Tribunal, apply to the Exclusion Tribunal for an order that the exclusion order be revoked.

(5) The Secretary of State shall not impose a further exclusion order if no further substantial evidence has been presented to him other than that on which the original exclusion order was based.'. —[Mr Soley.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Soley: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 20, in page 7, line 22, leave out clause 8.

Mr. Soley: We now come to a particularly important part of the Bill dealing with exclusion orders. We have argued many times, especially in Committee, that exclusion orders represent by far the most serious attack on civil liberties in this country for many years. I appreciate that the decision was taken in the aftermath of the Birmingham pub bombings, with all the emotion that prevailed at that time. It was part of an Act which was then regarded as helpful in preventing terrorism. We have consistently argued that time has shown that it is not a very effective way to prevent terrorism, but it remains a major infringement of civil liberties.
If the Minister, who was so dismissive in the previous debate, proposes to come out with any further pathetic innuendo about the Labour party changing its policy, I remind him that the purpose of the House is to consider legislation enacted in the past on the basis of evidence as to its effectiveness. If, in all reason and conscience, the House finds that the evidence does not prove that the legislation is achieving its aim, then there are strong and positive grounds for repealing the legislation. That is the position of the Labour party on this matter and the evidence is extremely strong. I hope that there will be no further pathetic innuendo from the Minister as he has repeated it so many times already that one day it will be put to music and perhaps reach the Top Ten.

Mr. Waddington: Is the hon. Gentleman including the Harrods bombing in his new strong evidence?

Mr. Soley: Yes, I am doing precisely that. I should like the Minister now to give me any evidence that the Prevention of Terrorism Act has taken the Government one step forward towards catching the people responsible. There is overwhelming evidence — one or two hon. Members will provide that evidence — that the legislation has resulted in several people being picked up, held, questioned and released without any charges being laid against them. We know that about 5,600 people have been arrested under the provisions of the legislation, but fewer than 100 charges have been laid. Every time the Minister makes statements he must take into account the way in which the measures alienate the minority community in Northern Ireland, and many people of Irish extraction in this country, from the forces of law and order.
We are fighting a propaganda battle, and the way to win it is not by alienating those whom the terrorist seeks to represent. That is the fallacy of the Minister's statement. I again challenge the Minister to give the House and the public one example of how the Prevention of Terrorism

Act has helped to catch or has enabled a move to be made towards catching anyone who planted the bomb outside Harrods. I shall give way now if the Minister wishes to put on record that he believes that the legislation has done so. I am not surprised that we are not receiving a response from the Minister. The Government have consistently failed to face the fact that the Prevention of Terrorism Act has alienated many people and damaged the credibility of successive Governments in fighting the terrorist menace.

Mr. Proctor: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that this legislation caused or promoted the Harrods bombing?

Mr. Soley: I can give positive evidence that the legislation is effectively used by the Provisional IRA and the INLA as a propaganda weapon with which to beat the British and as a way of appealing to the minority community to support and, in some cases, to join those organisations. If the hon. Gentleman wants an example, I advise him to read last week's edition of the Provisional IRA's paper "Republican News" which refers to the Act. The hon. Gentleman will then understand my point, but whether he agrees is another matter.
I am in danger of getting out of order on this issue, and I do not want to do that. Successive Governments have recognised the use of exclusion orders. I am not criticising either the present Government or previous Governments on the issue whether they regard this measure as a serious infringement of civil liberty. All Governments and all Home Secretaries, and the Minister of State, recognise that. Sometimes we give nice labels to horrendous ideas against civil liberties, and so, for example, refer to exclusion orders.
We should be frank and blunt and recognise that we are talking about internal exile. We should not dress it up with slightly better words. We are saying that if a person lives in one part of the United Kingdom and the Government think fit, that person will not be allowed to go to or live in another part of the United Kingdom. That is what we complained about so bitterly when the Soviet Union exiled Sakharov. I realise that the reasons for that action are fundamentally different, but we must recognise what we are doing: for the first time since the middle ages this country and the House are involved in political legislation which allows internal exile. That is the important point of the new clause.
In Committee, the Opposition argued strongly that it was time for exclusion orders to go. Lord Jellicoe recognised that this was one of the most important points that should be reviewed more frequently. We lost the vote, but I believe that we won the argument. People outside Parliament who would like to consider that debate should read it in the Official Report. There are some convincing arguments in that debate. Above all, they ought to examine the statistics in the back of Lord Jellicoe's report, which will tell them about the dangerous road on which we are travelling.
It is not just internal exile that troubles me. The Labour party is increasingly concerned about and recognises— we recognised this from the beginning, and there is an honesty of discussion within the Labour movement on this matter—that exclusion orders represent a slide from the rule of law and the judicial process, which means that politicians and police officers decide whether a person should be exiled from one part of the United Kingdom to another. I understand why we have allowed ourselves to slide into that position.
I remember the feelings after the Birmingham pub bombing and know the intense hostility and anger that I and all hon. Members observe each time a bombing or killing occurs. I say to many of those people who approach me that I wish there were the same degree of anger when such incidents occur in Northern Ireland, as happens all the time. I say that confidently as a shadow spokesman on Northern Ireland affairs. If there were anywhere near the same degree of hostility in Britain towards the killing and torture by paramilitary groups on both sides in Northern Ireland, I should be more confident that we could raise the level of the debate in this country about the nature of the political problem in Northern Ireland and the inability of the House to deal with it.
Lord Jellicoe, in a straight and clear admission, in page 95, paragraph 191 of his report, states:
Exclusion is a matter of public policy.
Lord Jellicoe is at one with Lord Gardiner in saying that reference to a court or tribunal is not appropriate because of public policy.
Why table a new clause that introduces such a court or tribunal? The argument must be that if we cannot abolish exclusion orders—as we argued in Committee—the next best thing is to say, "For heaven's sake, let us take this dangerous power that we have given to politicians and police officers and put it under at least some aspect of judicial control." The essence of new clause 2 is that some attempt must be made to bring exclusion orders under judicial control and take them outside the decision-making powers of police officers and Home Secretaries who are politicians elected to represent specific interests.
Between 1975 and 1980, the number of exclusion orders was relatively high. Sometimes there were as many as 45 per annum. Since 1980, the number has dropped considerably. In the last couple of years it has averaged about 10 per annum. A two-edged argument results. One argument is that, as so small a number of people are involved, is this matter of such importance that we should do anything about it now?
The other side of the argument—the one that weighs most heavily with me—is that, if the exclusion order is used so infrequently, do we want this draconian power — successive Home Secretaries have said that it is draconian—to deal with only 10 or 11 people, with all the shame that that brings to the House with its long history of protection of civil rights and liberties? I suggest that it is a fallacy to say that we want that power, and we should not allow ourselves to go down that road.
Lord Jellicoe, in page 94 of his report, states:
the possibility of abolishing it"—
the exclusion power—
should be kept under regular review, without prejudice to the Act's other powers.
Lord Jellicoe recognises that exclusion orders are by far the most draconian part of the Bill and that we need constantly to examine the other powers in the legislation. He is right. Given that we are using this power against only 10 or 11 people, the time has come to say that we can manage without it. I go further and say that our fight against terrorism could be enhanced if we showed that we were beginning to get on top of this aspect of the problem. That is the only interpretation in the light of the number

of exclusion orders dropping from about 45 per annum to about 10 per annum. If we are beginning to get on top of the problem, it is time to do without exclusion orders.
I recognise the force of the arguments of those who say, "You could cause a loss of life by doing that. A person who is excluded might otherwise have caused a bomb explosion." I have never argued that various parts of the Act have not saved some lives; they probably have.
5.30 pm
However, there are two arguments to put in the balance against that. The first is that the Act alienates the community that we are seeking to win over. The Act is used by Republican paramilitary forces as a recruiting sergeant. They use it to persuade unemployed youngsters in the north of Ireland who are impressed by the argument for nationalism to join their forces. However much we may dislike that argument, it is understandable, in the circumstances, that it has attractions.
There is no way of knowing which way the balance tilts — whether the Act is more productive or less productive. We have to make a judgment, and I say that we should come down on the side of civil liberties.
The second argument to be put in the balance is that, if we are talking only about saving lives, a lot of other legislation could save lives. I give what may sound a slightly unusual example, but it is one which I want to use and examine carefully. It would be possible to save several hundred lives every year by putting a massive police presence outside every pub visited by people who drink and drive. We could clamp down heavily and have numerous breath tests all over the country. That would be opposed by many Conservative Members who have spoken out publicly against random breath tests in the past few months.
Figures from the Department of Transport and elsewhere show that if we substantially reduced the number of people who drove while under the influence of drink we would lower the death rate on the roads by several hundred a year. The price would be measured in terms of civil liberties, and a democracy has to make judgments about such matters. It has to weigh the balance. No matter how unpopular its decisions may be when a bomb goes off outside a shop and kills people, the balance has to be weighed. One of the jobs of hon. Members is to act as leaders.

Ms. Harriet Harman: Does my hon. Friend accept that there is no evidence that the Act has done anything to help prevent a single act of terrorism or to detect the perpetrators of any terrorist act? The claim that the Act prevents terrorism is not proven, and that is why the House should not re-enact it in this form.

Mr. Soley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Her words "not proven" are appropriate. I can envisage that the Act may have prevented terrorist acts, just as I can say that it may have caused loss of life by acting as a recruiting sergeant for paramilitary groups. That is a matter of judgment.

Ms. Clare Short: My hon. Friend makes an enormously important point when he says that the Act may have saved lives. I disagree fundamentally with that. [Interruption.] This is an extremely important matter and not a subject for laughter.
The important powers in the Bill to catch criminals and terrorists exist in other legislation and it can be demonstrated that the Act has led to an increased danger of people losing their lives.
In Committee, we asked the Minister of State to tell us whether anyone who had been excluded from Great Britain to Northern Ireland had subsequently been convicted of terrorist offences. There is a significant number of such people—15 certain cases and a possible 31 more. If we did not have the exclusion power and the police did their job properly and kept an eye on those people, they would not be sent to Northern Ireland and left free to commit other terrorist offences.
I take the opposite view to my hon. Friend. The Act does not prevent terrorism. Indeed, the exclusion power gives people a second chance to engage in terrorist activity.

Mr. Soley: My hon. Friend is not as far from me as she thinks. I did not say that the Act prevents terrorism. I said that what is in question is the balanced judgment whether the Act does that. There is subjective evidence on both sides of the case and no definite proof on either side. We have to make a judgment based on the figures and our assessment of people's feelings here and in Northern Ireland. My hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) was right to use the words "not proven". There is no evidence to show that the Act has prevented terrorism and none to show that it has not. The case is not proven, and therefore we have to judge the matter by other standards.
We must recognise that when we exclude a person we are saying, in effect, "We know what your are up to." It is rather like the spy who is caught; his usefulness is immediately diminished. If we believe that a person is involved in paramilitary activity, the weapons that we should use against him are the normal weapons of surveillance that the security forces employ. If we exclude someone, we are saying to him, "We know that you are involved." We also say to all contacts, "We know that he is involved." As a result, the contacts are broken, hidden or changed. It does not cure the problem; it merely puts it on another plane.
We argue for a tribunal of three High Court judges. The hon. Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) said earlier that our proposal would expose some secret matters to public view. It would not do so. Tribunals and courts can sit in camera.

Mr. Alex Carlile: The hon. Gentleman misunderstood what I said. Of course courts can sit in camera, but if the provisions of the new clause are intended to mean what they say the detainee would hear the evidence of the information that led to the decision to detain him. That would pose great dangers to members of the public who had supplied information to the police.

Mr. Soley: It is a two-edged weapon. If the hon. Gentleman were involved in the debate in Northern Ireland, he would know that the problem is not unknown there. People face it and give evidence in the trials of members of paramilitary forces. I admire their courage, but it has to be done. There is a price to be paid for democracy. I hope that I am not putting it too high when I say that when we are challenged by a paramilitary threat, we have to ask people to put their lives and welfare on the line. Indeed, hon. Members who represent constituencies

in Northen Ireland do that and some of them have died doing so. I recognise that, and the hon. Member for Montgomery, who speaks as a lawyer, also needs to recognise that.

Mr. David Ashby: Does the hon. Gentleman envisage that the tribunal would sit in open court or, as I would expect, always in closed session? Would there be direct evidence? There would be considerable difficulty about that. What standard of proof would be required? Such questions are pertinent to the new clause.

Mr. Soley: The hon. Gentleman is correct. If I do not answer his questions; as I move on, I shall be happy to allow him to intervene again.
I assume that in the vast majority of cases, the tribunal would sit in camera. That option would always have to be available to it. That is the simple answer to the hon. Gentleman's first question. I am not sure about direct evidence. I was intending to say that there is a clear case on both sides of the argument. The relevant point is that the person facing exclusion should have legal aid, because he would then have a legally qualified person to speak and ask questions for him. That is important and could perhaps deal with the problem of direct evidence. I do not pretend that I have a detailed answer, but I should like to see the tribunal build up a body of practice and legal knowledge to deal with the problem. I cannot see any alternative
If the Government are determined to stick by their rigorous decision to retain exclusion orders, I have to say that, if we are to have them, there must be some judicial practice. I will concede, as I am sure that the Minister will, that many difficulties; would be involved. Some of them have already been described. However, a decision must be taken.
For how much longer are exclusion orders to be retained? If the figure drops from 10 to two a year, will we keep the orders or drop them at that stage? If, one year, no orders are made, shall we still retain the power to make them? The orders may be with us for many years. I assume that a tribunal or court could build up a body of legal practice which would enable it to deal with them. I do not pretend that the process would be easy or even always entirely logical, but it would be an effort to reduce the element of straight political legislation in this part of the Act and to increase its involvement with the rule of law and judicial interpretation.
At the moment, an excluded person can only make representation in writing to, and seek a personal interview with, a nominee of the Secretary of State. He does not have direct access to the person who excluded him. He writes down his views as to why he should not be excluded. If he does not receive a satisfactory answer, he may then ask for the Secretary of State to appoint a nominee. The nominee may talk to him. That is the only defence against internal exile.
It is easy to stand here and pick holes in the new clause. However, one must ask what the alternatives are. If the Government have decided that they wish to retain this part of the Act, I can understand that. If they wish to drop this part of the Act sooner or later, we must ask at what point they will do so. How do we judge when a power should be dropped? How rarely must it be used before it is abandoned? Those are the questions that the Government must answer if they object to the new clause.
Finally, subsection (5) enacts and tightens up the statement made by the Home Secretary in Committee that, without further evidence, he would
only in the rarest of circumstances" — [Official Report, Standing Committee D; 15 November 1983, c. 144.]
make another exclusion order on an individual who had already been excluded. He would insist on fresh evidence. To make repeated exclusion orders on the basis of old evidence could not be justified. That is what we are trying to make clear in the new clause.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: The new clause refers to that part of the Bill which is concerned with exclusion orders. There is nothing that the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) can say against exclusion orders which has not been said, and is not strongly held, by my hon. Friends and myself. From the very beginning we have protested against this institution, which the hon. Gentleman correctly describes as internal exile. It is internal exile with the additional implication that Northern Ireland, distinguished for this purpose from the rest of the United Kingdom, is treated as a leper colony to which terrorists or potential terrorists can be exported.
I have no desire to trench upon discussion of the next amendment, which is aimed at eliminating internal exile from the Bill. I trust that my hon. Friends and I will have the support of the official Opposition for that amendment, in the light of the words just used by the hon. Member for Hammersmith. The hon. Gentleman was right to say that the institution of exclusion orders in 1974, and their retention, has represented a slide away from the rule of law. It entrusts an administrative discretion to a Minister to impose upon a citizen the severe penalty of being ordered to remove from one part of the United Kingdom to another, and to impose that penalty, not for an offence, but for what is apprehended administratively as a danger.
5.45 pm
The hon. Gentleman was quite correct in his assertion. Where I believe that he is mistaken is in recommending the new clause as a remedy and as some partial restoration, as it were, of the rule of law. That is not possible. We are attempting, if we adopt it in that light, to combine incompatibles.
What the new clause represents is the creation of an executive power. My hon. Friends and I do not believe —and nor does the hon. Gentleman—that that executive power is any longer justified—whatever the case in the past-or that its existence outweighs its disadvantages, but we cannot alter its nature by setting up a commission of three judges. They will not be exercising a proper judicial function, taking the law and deciding whether a particular individual falls within the mischief of the law as made by this Parliament, but will be covering an administrative act of the Secretary of State. They will be a sham cover for an act which is not judicial but administrative.
I can prove that. Let us suppose that it were possible —this is only hypothetical—to demonstrate that failure to exclude X had resulted in the commission of a terrorist atrocity. If that failure to exclude had been the result not of the Secretary of State's decision not to use his power, but of a decision of a court, the Secretary of State could say to members of the public who complained that the Secretary of State had powers and was not using them for

their protection that he had washed his hands of the matter and that it was nothing to do with him: the House of Commons had said that it was to go to the court, and the court had thrown it out.
The effect of such an amendment would be to blur the fact that the responsibility lies with the Secretary of State. It would blur the essentially executive nature of the decision which he has, on his own responsibility—his responsibility ultimately to this House—to make.
It would also have another undesirable effect. It would degrade and place in a false light the function of the judiciary. We have gone too far down that road already. Too frequently use is made of High Court and other distinguished judges to chair tribunals and courts of inquiry, especially in the case of hot political subjects. If we were to adopt the new clause we would put that error on to the statute book. We would give to High Court judges, whose business is to interpret the law, the function of deciding whether the balance of risk — not on probative evidence, but on such evidence as in these cases the Secretary of State has to take account of—justified their condemning someone to internal exile. We should put the judiciary in a false position if we attempted to introduce this safeguard. In fact, it is not a safeguard, in the sense that it exaggerates and increases the disadvantages of the exclusion provision.
One beneficial result that is likely to come from this debate is that we shall see that we must have the exclusion procedure, or that we must get rid of it altogether. We cannot simply compromise and cover it up by discovering some sort of tribunal or instance of appeal which will make it harmless or less harmless.
Therefore, I fear that as much as my hon. Friends and I dislike—as we will prove presently by debate and in the Lobby — the existence of this power, we cannot support Her Majesty's Opposition on this amendment.

Mr. Martin Flannery: I have a great deal of sympathy with the views of the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell), but when we consider the Prevention of Terrorism Act and the Bill, one of the matters which stand out to those who have been in Committee—this is a new development for us—is that hardly one jot or title of the Bill has been altered. In fact, so little has been changed that when there was a tiny alteration—I say this with the deepest respect to the right hon. Gentleman—the Minister made a witticism and boasted about it.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: But he did not vote for it.

Mr. Flannery: No, he did not vote for it. We know that the feelings of Conservative Members—the bombings deepen this—are not dissimilar to those during the panic in 1974 when, with no dissent, a Bill was enacted following the Birmingham bombings. That attitude returns every time anything dreadful, such as the Harrods bombing, takes place.
Knowing that we cannot kick out or mitigate the effects of the Bill in some way, we are trying to bring back the rule of law and give some sustenance to the people who are attacked by such draconian measures, as they were described when they were first enacted. We are aware that the exclusion orders do no provable good. My hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) said that with many things, such as breath tests, we are convinced that we save lives. These exclusion orders may be saving lives,


but that cannot be proved. We condemn many innocent people in the process and antagonise many innocent Irish people, and people such as myself with Irish names, who are immediately subjected to abuse and obscene telephone calls when the Irish are being condemned.
One matter which has not been mentioned, although I am sure that hon. Members are aware of it, is that most of these exclusions or internal exiles are to Northern Ireland. It is using Northern Ireland as a dustbin and in effect saying, "If you are going to do something dreadful, do it over there and not over here." That is not treating Northern Ireland as part of the United Kingdom by those who insist that it is.
The provision causes misery and leads to the abuse of anyone connected with Ireland or who raises his voice about it. I have never spoken in the House, as far as I can remember, without saying to Members of the Official Unionist party that I worry as deeply about them as about anyone. My heart goes out to the people who must live in Northern Ireland, but at the same time I want to point out that exclusion orders, which are the most objectionable part of the Bill, are an abrogation of natural justice and the rule of law. They do no good. They treat people as if they are all potential criminals.
I remember Gerry Fitt, who was then the hon. Member for Belfast, West, and of whom I have been a friend for many years, saying
I particularly resent this legislation because of the exclusion orders … I am convinced—again, one can only use one's intelligence, and I have a reputation for being opposed to the men of violence—that utterly innocent people have been excluded from this part of the United Kingdom without their having been involved in any action or support for terrorist organisations." —[Official Report, 15 March 1982; Vol. 20, c. 167.]
I object to the draconian nature of the violation of the rule of law. People have no right to know why they are being excluded; no right to know the evidence against them or to cross-examine those who are supposed to have collected it; and no right to a trial or a formal hearing. That is dreadful. The danger is that the power will be extended. I noticed that a man called Stokeley Carmichael was excluded from this country the other day. People may know all kinds of reasons for that. I know that when there is an exclusion provision, it is later used to exclude wider and wider groups of people.
Amendment No. 20 and new clause 2 are a serious attempt by the Opposition to try to introduce some slight measure of law and democracy into this dreadful Bill. We do not have much hope, but we wish to get it on the record that we are trying to do that, because it is vital to let it be known that those who have spent all their time struggling against the Bill since the beginning—as some of us have — are on the side of the rule of law and are profoundly against terrorism, from whichever side it comes.

Ms. Harman: Exclusions orders are really internal exile. Internal exile is a form of punishment without charge or trial. What is being said to people who are subject to internal exile is, "Although you are citizens of the United Kingdom, you cannot live here in Great Britain." That will mean losing their job, if they have one, and if they are excluded to Northern Ireland they have a fat chance of finding a job there. They are forced to separate from their spouse and children or to disrupt their lives and take them. That could mean disrupting their education and jobs and making them leave their friends.
To cap it all, they would be forced to live away from Great Britain under the stigma of an accusation of terrorism. That is a severe punishment. It cannot be described as anything else. It is nonsense to say that it is not.
The Government say that it is not a punishment, but merely an administrative measure, because if they were to concede that it was a punishment they would have to allow a fair trial. Calling it an administrative measure is sleight of hand to preclude natural justice for the person subject to an exclusion order.
As the Bill stands, there is no natural justice. The person whose life is likely to be seriously disrupted has no right to know what he is suspected of. He has no right to know, hear or challenge the evidence which, apparently, has been put forward against him.
We know that if evidence is not subject to challenge, a low standard of evidence can be used. The provision for making representations to the Secretary of State is a sham, because how can one make representations that one has not done something when one does not know what one is accused of? The representation point is slender.
6 pm
The same is true of the so-called right to interview. The interviewer is nominated by the Secretary of State, so he is not independent. This is about as fair as the Secretary of State would feel it to be if the potential interviewer were to be chosen by the person to be excluded. What a bizarre sort of interview it will be. Will the interviewer tell the person being interviewed anything about the suspicions against him or about the evidence? Will he be allowed legal representation? The chances are that he will not get legal aid because there is no criminal charge entitling him to legal aid. Will the person be entitled to know what representations the interviewer will make to the Secretary of State?
I remind the House of what Lord Jellicoe said about exclusion orders:
I have found consideration of the system of exclusion to be the most difficult part of my task. It is in many ways the most extreme of the Act's powers: in its effect on civil liberties, it is in my view more severe than any other power in the Act; in its procedure and principles it departs more thoroughly from the normal criminal process than any other part of the Act it has aroused substantial resentment even among many, particularly in Northern Ireland, who support the aims and content of the remainder of the legislation.
The House must accept that internal exile is a punishment. If any of the hon. Members on the Government Benches who intend to vote for the Bill were subject to internal exile, they would regard it as a punishment. We should not mete out punishment without even a nod in the direction of natural justice. The new clause will go part of the way to mitigate that injustice. I take the point made by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) that the Act is so rotten at its best that the new clause does only a small amount, but we feel that it does enough to make it worthwhile introducing and supporting.
The new clause would do that by the introduction of an exclusion tribunal. At least the three High Court judges would not be directly nominated by the Secretary of State. They would be more independent than that. At least the tribunal would hear evidence and arguments from both sides and the person who was likely to be punished with an exclusion order would have an opportunity to hear the evidence and arguments against him. He would at least be entitled to legal representation and legal aid and would be


able to ask for a review of the exclusion order after one year. If there were no further charges or evidence against him, the exclusion order would then lapse.

Mr. Ashby: The hon. Lady is a lawyer, so will she explain how one can have legal aid when there are no rules governing the form of evidence? Where evidence will be circumstantial or hearsay, there cannot be any rule of law. One would be looking at reviews and reports. In no way would there be a judicial proceeding. As the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) said, that turns the whole system on its head. How can the hon. Lady's system work properly?

Ms. Harman: Internal exile as an administrative procedure is rotten. It is difficult to graft on to something that is fundamentally rotten a partially fair procedure. However, that is what we are trying to do, although we would rather see the Bill go altogether. We lost that in Committee, and we are trying, on behalf of the people who might get caught up in this, for some mitigation. If some hon. Members were innocently caught up in something about which they knew nothing, they would be grateful for such mitigation, small as it is, and would want to know the evidence against them and be able to have legal representation.
Without the new clause, and even with it, internal exile as an administrative procedure breaches the European convention on human rights. We should be prepared to apply the same standards to ourselves as we are so ready to apply to others. When internal exile occurs in other countries, we are quick to point the finger and say that it is a disgraceful denial of human rights, but we are doing it in this country.
If someone is involved in terrorism and there is evidence to that effect, he should and must be prosecuted. If there is no evidence, he should be regarded as innocent until he is proved guilty. That is supposed to be one of our fundamental principles of law. If the people who are being subjected to exclusion orders are guilty of criminal offences and of instigating terrorism, should we export them to Northern Ireland? That is nonsense. Internal exile brings the law into disrepute and we should vote in favour of the new clause, but bear in mind that the system of exclusion orders is fundamentally wrong.

Mr. Gerald Bermingham: We had many debates at some length in Committee on the subject of exclusion orders. I say now, as I said in Committee, that the exclusion order is an affront to our society because it leads to the dumping of people in one part of our land—Northern Ireland—and means that the Siberia concept is imported into our law.
In Committee, on the debates on clause 8 and in various other debates, time and again an important series of questions was asked of the Minister. I asked about the quality of evidence and why there could not be an investigation. His reply bears looking at with some care, particularly when we begin to try to rectify the mess of the Bill. I go along with what my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Ms. Harman) said, that the new clause is by no means the ideal solution but it might import some fairness into our system, a system that is patently and blatantly unfair. The Minister said:

Sometimes there is information against a person that points to his being a terrorist, but which would not be admissible in court.
I have always thought that the basis of our system was that we needed real evidence, evidence that was admissible, not tittle-tattle, prejudice, adverse comment, supposition or suspicion. The Minister went on:
There is often evidence against him which would be admissible, but it cannot be disclosed publicly because it might lead to the death of the person who had given the information to the police." — [Official Report, Standing Committee D, 15 November 1983; c. 125.]
We pointed out to the Minister, as I have done time and again, that it is not unusual in an English court room for a witness to be at risk, and steps can be taken to protect him. That happens all the time and has happened in a recent series of robbery trials in the Old Bailey in which the witnesses were thought to be at risk. They were given a new identity in another land.
I do not accept the Minister's reply in Committee. We pressed the point but failed to get another answer. It seems that the Government are determined not to learn the lessons of history or to learn that this land, which prizes so greatly its ability to abide by the rule of law, sometimes gets wrong laws. We bring in Acts that are later shown to be a disgrace. The prevention of terrorism legislation has always been a disgrace because it is a series of infringements of fundamental liberties. If a society is worth having, it is worth having only if it keeps to its basic principles and concepts.
This is not the first time that we have flown in the face of the European convention on human rights. I can give two examples, one very recent and one not so recent. The not-so-recent case concerned our laws for the mentally ill. I declare an interest, because I was involved in the case that went to Europe, which resulted in alterations to the Act. My ex-practice took that case. We still do not have our mental health laws right, but we are a long way further down the road of doing so.
The same can be said of the parole system. That was the subject of much challenge in a recent decision on admissibility. It appears that we have also got that wrong. Equally, I suggest that we are wrong in the way in which we deal with people under the prevention of terrorism legislation, and once again we risk the condemnation of the European courts. In a way, I would welcome this matter being tested in the European courts. As a country that prides itself on the rule of law, it is essential that we should have laws that comply with the European convention on human rights.
The hon. Member for Leicestershire, North-West (Mr. Ashby) asked how legal representation could be given. Under the new clause, a person subject to an exclusion order, or faced with exclusion, would at least have some hope of having his side of the story put, as a result of which the method of determining exclusion might be changed. All that happens under the present system is that forms are passed and notes are made without the party involved knowing what is going on.
Under clause 7(6), such a person is entitled to be advised by a person who is nominated—almost like a friend. But even clause 7(6) has its limitations when one considers the provisions of clause 7(8), which contains a get-out in certain circumstances. The Bill will give a person few or no rights, but the new clause will at least give him the right to


apply within 30 days to an Exclusion Tribunal for an order that the exclusion order be revoked".
Subsection (2)(a) of the new clause says:
the Exclusion Tribunal  shall consist of three High Court Judges.
Earlier this afternoon the hon. Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) talked about secrecy. I remind him that from time to time treason trials are held in this country, and everyone involved maintains the secrets that are disclosed in the "in camera" hearing. Therefore, what is the danger of three High Court judges hearing the evidence? There is none. Our judiciary has always been bound by silence, as have our lawyers. If lawyers were made subject to the Official Secrets Act, that would be no worry to them. One of the great advantages of our legal system is that our lawyers know when to keep a secret. They can disclose only on the authority of a client, or they will be in breach of their professional rules.
Subsection (2)(a) also states:
It shall hear representations and evidence".
The judges will be in a good position to sift the tittle-tattle, innuendo, suspicion and smear. If someone is to be sentenced—exclusion is a sentence—he ought at least to be informed of the evidence.
We cannot have punishment without trial, not in a civilised society, because the minute we reach that stage we are well on the Orwellian road. Regrettably, we began going down that road not in 1984 but in 1974. Perhaps after 10 years' experience we will have the courage to leave that road.
Subsection (2)(b) of the new clause states:
the Secretary of State shall inform the person to be excluded in advance of the reasons for the order and of the evidence against him".
Were that to become part of our legal system, it would at least give the person the right of reply, as well as knowledge of the allegation. It is difficult for someone to talk to a person appointed to interview him if he does not know what the interview is about. One could have an endless and useless conversation based on speculation. At least some effort has gone into the new clause to avoid that.
6.15 pm
Subsection (2)(c) says:
the person to be excluded shall have the right to legal representation and to legal aid.
That simply means that the person will have the right to advice. Whether or not he can afford it, he will get that advice, and the person giving such advice will be able to sift the value of the evidence and allegations, prepare the counter-arguments and, ultimately, present them to three High Court judges.
That is not an ideal solution, but it is at least an attempt to correct a great and horrific injustice in the Bill. The ideal solution would be not to accept new clause 2 but to reject clause 8 in its entirety. However, the Committee has already felt the weight of Conservative votes, and no doubt the weight of those votes will again be used tonight.
I hope and pray that Conservative Members will begin to understand that if we are to call ourselves a civilised society, the least we can have is civilised laws. Internal exile is not civilised. It is a disgrace. New clause 2 is but a humble and poor attempt to try to rectify a great wrong.

Mr. Waddington: The debate began with some general remarks from the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) about the exclusion powers. We shall shortly

debate those exclusion powers. It is, however, important to consider what the hon. Gentleman said, because presumably that explains the birth of the new clause
He said that the legislation alienates the Irish in this country. I do not believe that it alienates the well-disposed, but I do not pretend that I am an expert in this matter. All I can say—I know that the hon. Gentleman resents this type of remark, but in this context I am perfectly entitled to make it—is that it has taken the Labour party a long time to discover that the legislation creates such great alienation and causes such great disadvantage that it counterbalances the advantage that he has conceded may well flow from exclusion clauses.

Ms. Clare Short: Throughout Committee, and twice in his speech today, the Minister has sneered at the Labour party for previously supporting the legislation and, in the light of experience, changing its mind. He has also said that the Conservative party reluctantly supports such draconian powers which endanger civil liberties and cells us that they will get rid of the Bill at the earliest opportunity. Does it not therefore follow that one day the Conservative party will change its mind and cease to support the Bill? If so, will the hon. and learned Gentleman refrain from making such a totally inconsistent argument?

Mr. Waddington: The difficulty about the hon. Lady's argument—and we must not waste time on it—is that the Labour party suddenly had a change of mind without any change in the circumstances. That has always puzzled many people.

Ms. Harman: Will the Minister accept that it is not a sudden change of mind? What was sudden was the passing of the prevention of terrorism laws, and since then we have been able to reflect on their effect. It is in the light of that experience that many people who agreed with the laws when they were first put on the statute book have genuinely changed their minds.

Mr. Waddington: That is a difficult argument to follow. The hon. Lady was saying that it took about eight years for the Labour party to come to the conclusion that what it had decided was necessary when it was in office was no longer necessary.
Let us not spend too much time on this matter. Although the hon. Member for Hammersmith concedes that lives might be saved by the exclusion arrangements in the Bill, he thinks that more lives might be lost because of the alienation of people as a result of the existence of these powers. He is entitled to hold that opinion, but it is an opinion that I, and I am sure my hon. Friends, do not hold.

Mr. Soley: The Minister keeps pursuing this matter, and as long as he does so I am afraid that we shall have to intervene to put him right. We know the figures that were given by Lord Jellicoe. Back in the 1970s, about 144 people were detained for more than 36 hours. Now the figure is down to about 10 or 12. However, the Minister could not tell us why. The same is true with exclusion orders. The figures produced by his own office demonstrate the need for change. The problem is that the Conservative Government do not learn from experience.

Mr. Waddington: If there were many uses of this power, the hon. Gentleman would argue that it proved how purposeless it was to have the powers because they were


not proving of any use. Terrorism was going on, hundreds of exclusion orders were being made. He would say that, because it was having no impact, we should not renew the legislation. The hon. Gentleman cannot expect the House to pay much attention to that argument.
The main thrust of amendment No. 20 and new clause 2 is to introduce into the exclusion system a judicial appeal procedure by setting up a tribunal of three High Court judges to hear the cases of the Secretary of State and the excluded person. The hon. Member for Hammersmith, at the start of the debate, and to his credit, accepted that Lord Jellicoe strongly refuted the argument, which he is now advancing on behalf of the Labour party, that the final decision should not rest with the Secretary of State. The hon. Gentleman has already referred to the key passage in paragraph 190 of Lord Jellicoe's report:
Exclusion is a matter of public policy. It is based not merely on the conduct of the excluded person, but also — once his terrorist involvement is established—on matters such as the security situation at the time exclusion is considered and the danger the person poses to the public at large. Neither the courts nor any form of tribunal could properly be expected to carry out an examination of all these issues and to reach a binding decision. It is noteworthy that Lord Gardiner's committee which in the mid-1970s examined, amongst other things, the procedures governing internment in Northern Ireland recommended that the final decision should rest not with any body or tribunal, but solely with the Secretary of State.
In the next paragraph, Lord Jellicoe went on to deal with the argument that
the review process should incorporate more safeguards and place greater emphasis on elements of due process".
He concluded in paragraph 193 that the introduction of such procedures would lead not only to no improvement in the process of reviewing exclusion orders
but would in practice constitute no more than a parody of due legal process and would thus contribute to a loss of public confidence in the legal system".
The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) echoed those words. We must decide whether we want to have the exclusion powers. There is no benefit whatever in trying to pretend that one can draft on to that executive power this window dressing of judicial process.
Lord Jellicoe accepted that exclusion decisions are not based on evidence of the kind dealt with in a court of law. This deals with the matter that was raised by the hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham). We went over the matter repeatedly in Committee. If such evidence were available, the exclusion system would not be needed. It is designed to place some control on people against whom prosecutions cannot be brought, even although it is known that they are involved in terrorism. Often there is no firm evidence of such involvement, only intelligence, which gives a picture of terrorist activity over a long period.

Mr. Bermingham: Does the Minister accept that he is saying, in effect, "If we think it and we cannot prove it, we will punish you by excluding you. However, if we think it and we can prove it, we will prosecute you." Is not that conviction by innuendo rather than conviction by evidence?

Mr. Waddington: The hon. Gentleman has never recognised that the only justification for these powers is the fact that sometimes it is impossible to produce evidence that would lead to a conviction in court and that sometimes, even although there is clear evidence that

would lead to a conviction in court, such evidence cannot be disclosed, because it would lead to revealing the source of that evidence and his possible demise. The hon. Gentleman has had that said to him on many occasions. He may disagree with it, but he knows perfectly well that that is the justification for the legislation. He does not like the legislation. I happen to believe that what has happened in Northern Ireland makes it necessary, and that is the Government's view at present.

Ms. Harman: A moment ago, the Minister called our new clause "window dressing". If he were an innocent person — there is always the possibility of suspicion falling on such a person — on whom suspicion had fallen, would he rather have legal representation, a right to know the evidence, and a hearing by three High Court judges, or would he say, "Sorry, I am not interested. That is window dressing." In my opinion, that is an ultra-Leftist view.

Mr. Waddington: I do not know what view the imaginary person would take. I am saying that the three judges would not, by definition, be listening to evidence. If they were listening to evidence, we should not need this Bill. We are dealing with a situation in which Parliament has deemed it necessary over a period of years to take special powers that are invoked as a result not of the presentation of evidence but of the existence of intelligence.
I do not intend to go into the ways in which such intelligence is gathered. That is not necessary. However, I am sure that the House will understand that to make such information public, for example, by giving it to the excluded person, might destroy not only the chances of obtaining more information from the same source, but endanger the lives of those people who collect it. As intelligence gathering, both in Great Britain and Northern Ireland, has often enabled the police to pre-empt or frustrate planned terrorist attacks, I am sure that the House will agree that everything possible should be done to protect such activities. For those reasons, the suggestion that the person to be excluded should be told of the evidence against him is quite unacceptable.

Mr. Bermingham: Does the Minister accept that Lord Jellicoe says in his report that the basis of the evidence is normally from what is called secret service sources— that is to say, Army officers, special branch, and so on? Does the Minister accept that if the excluded person is told that the allegation against him is, for example, that on 13 March he was present at a meeting in Dungannon or somewhere else in Northern Ireland, and that that is the nature of the evidence, that will not endanger anyone? Will it not at least give the excluded person the right to reply, "I was not there. I was in fact elsewhere," and he can then produce evidence to support that. There is a way in which evidence can be given which does not disclose the source and does not endanger anyone else.
Will the Minister further accept that it is possible in major criminal trials in Britain to protect witnesses who are thought to be in danger? We are discussing a fundamental principle of human rights, which is the right to know the allegation that is made against the person.

Mr. Waddington: I do not know what is meant by "evidence", as the word appears in the new clause. The


hon. Gentleman is right to say that some limitations could be put on the meaning of the word. In spite of the plain wording of the clause, the Labour party might mean that the whole of the evidence should not be disclosed to the person concerned. I have not the faintest idea of the thinking that lies behind the clause. However, if the evidence in the true sense is to be revealed to the person concerned, it is almost inconceivable that there would not also be revealed to that person the identity of the person who had given the information to the police.
It seems that there is a misunderstanding of the existing schemes to provide legal aid. Legal advice and assistance is available under section 1 of the Legal Aid Act 1974. It operates on a sliding scale of remission of fees and provides for oral or written advice by a solicitor, and by counsel if necessary. It may not initially exceed work to the value of £40, but that ceiling may be raised in certain circumstances.
Legal aid is also available for civil and criminal proceedings before the courts and certain tribunals. It is intended to provide for legal representation in those proceedings where, because of complex rules of evidence and procedure and because an adversarial system is applied, it would be unreasonable to expect the litigant himself, or a lay representative, to present the case adequately. As for assistance with representation under clause 7, the necessary advice and assistance is already available, subject to means, for the likely circumstances.
It will be clear from what I have said that the Government's opposition to the establishment of a tribunal rests on a number of planks: the need for the power to exclude to remain with the Secretary of State, Lord Jellicoe's view that the judicial process is an inappropriate one for exclusion and the need to protect sources of information.
It will be no surprise, therefore, that we are resisting also the suggestion in subsection (4) of the new clause that the tribunal should have the power annually to review exclusion orders. The three-year life for exclusion orders, which was recommended by Lord Jellicoe and implemented in clause 3, is a relaxation of the provisions in the 1976 Act. It is designed to ensure that a person who is the subject of an order does not suffer unnecessary hardship, and that he has time to demonstrate by disengagement that he is no longer involved in terrorism. If, after three years, the police are not satisfied that the excluded person has terminated his involvement, they may make an application for a new order to the Secretary of State. I am satisfied that this is the right way to provide a safeguard for excluded persons against indefinite extension of their orders, especially in the light of the assurance that was given in Committee by my right hon. and learned Friend.
Subsection (5) of the new clause would prevent the Secretary of State from making a further order against an excluded person unless there was further substantial evidence over and above that on which the original order was based. I am not sure precisely what the Opposition mean by "substantial evidence". It appears that they are imposing a more stringent requirement on the Home Secretary than that in clauses 4,5 and 6, which require him only to be satisfied of an involvement in terrorism. I hope that they will find it helpful if I quote the statement that my right hon. and learned Friend made in Committee on 15 November 1983 on the subject of further orders:

It is necessary that there should be a power to make a fresh order for the reasons that were given by my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State. It would be absurd if fresh circumstances arose which satisfied the Secretary of State that some people had been involved in the commission of acts and terrorism. Therefore he must not be prevented from making an exclusion order merely because he made one previously on the basis of different evidence. However, if events during the three years in which an exclusion order is in force indicate that nothing fresh has occurred, that there is nothing to give rise to a fresh application—if all that is being relied on is material which led to the initial application—I envisage making a fresh exclusion order only in the rarest of circumstances. I would not simply rely on stale material that had been the basis of the original order. I am talking about a fresh order. Only rarely will previous material which is unsupplemented and uncorroborted by more contemporary material be regarded as sufficient for that purpose." — [Official Report, Standing Committee D; 15 November 1983, c. 143–44.]

Mr. Bermingham: I listened to that undertaking in Committee and I have listened to it today. The issue that has troubled me and many other hon. Members is that there is no way in which anyone can know upon what basis the original order was made. We never know the details of the allegations or anything else. Therefore, there is no yardstick by which we can subsequently test the new order that is being sought. I know that it is stated in the Jellicoe report that we should rely on parliamentary scrutiny and announcements to Parliament, but I am a practical man and I must ask the Minister how we are to know that there is adherence to the undertaking. There is no yardstick and there are no criteria on which we can judge in each individual case.

Mr. Waddington: If one accepts the necessity for the legislation, there can be no way in which the hon. Gentleman will always be able to discover the information which was given to the Secretary of State. It is likely that he will never be able to so discover. That is the inevitable result of operating a system which depends on information as well as evidence, as I said a short while ago.

Mr. Flannery: The Minister will probably remember that I said in Committee that under this procedure the accused is not tried but is found guilty and is then made the subject of an exclusion order. If the order is withdrawn, the same system is operated and he is not tried but is found guilty again. What sort of justice is that?

Mr. Waddington: I would not accept for one moment that an exclusion order has been wrongly made because there may thereafter be an acquittal of a specific criminal offence. It would be nonsense so to suggest, any more than it is right to suggest, although it has often been suggested from the Labour Benches, that because a criminal charge does not follow an exclusion order, the exclusion order should not have been made.
The hon. Gentleman was rather churlish when he said that the Bill was not changed in Committee. I am sure that he will agree that there have been considerable changes in the Bill compared with the 1976 Act, which was introduced by the then Labour Government. New safeguards have been inserted because we recognise that we are dealing with serious powers. I urge the hon. Gentleman to give credit where credit is due. The fact that there can be no use of an exclusion order after three years of residence instead of 20 years of residence is a new protection for the individual. The fact that an exclusion order lasts for only three years instead of indefinitely is a


new protection for the individual. The wider provisions to make representations that are set out in clause 7 are new protections for the individual.
To revert to the passage that I read from the Home Secretary's speech in Committee, the Opposition may be seeking to embody his assurance in the Bill by framing this part of the new clause. However, I draw their attention to the fact that my right hon. and learned Friend reserved his position by referring to the rare circumstances in which he might wish to make an order without new data. The subsection would deny him that possibility, and bring into the public domain the question of what constitutes substantial evidence. Therefore, I ask the House to reject the amendment and the new clause.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 112, Noes 250.

Division No.139]
[6.40 pm


AYES


Alton, David
Janner, Hon Greville


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
 Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Kilroy-Silk, Robert


Barron, Kevin
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
Leadbitter, Ted


Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)
Leighton, Ronald


Bermingham, Gerald
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Blair, Anthony
Lewis, Terence (Worsley)


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Litherland, Robert


Boyes, Roland
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Buchan, Norman
Loyden, Edward


Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)
McCartney, Hugh


Campbell-Savours, Dale
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Canavan, Dennis
McGuire, Michael


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


Clay, Robert
McKelvey, William


Cohen, Harry
Mackenzie, Rt Hon Gregor


Cook, Frank (Stockton North)
McNamara, Kevin


Corbyn, Jeremy
McTaggart, Robert


Cowans, Harry
McWilliam, John


Craigen, J. M.
Madden, Max


Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)
Marek, Dr John


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'I)
Maxton, John


Dewar, Donald
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Dormand, Jack
Nellist, David


Dubs, Alfred
O'Neill, Martin


Eadie, Alex
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Eastham, Ken
Park, George


Edwards, Bob (W'h'mpt'n SE)
Parry, Robert


Ellis, Raymond
Patchett, Terry


Evans, John (St. Helens N)
Pike, Peter


Ewing, Harry
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Fatchett, Derek
Prescott, John


Faulds, Andrew
Redmond, M.


Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)
Richardson, Ms Jo


Fisher, Mark
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Flannery, Martin
Rogers, Allan


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)


Foster, Derek
Sedgemore, Brian


Garrett, W. E.
Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)


George, Bruce
Short, Mrs R.(W'hampt'n NE)


Godman, Dr Norman
Silkin, Rt Hon J.


Harman, Ms Harriet
Skinner, Dennis


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Smith, C.(Islton S &amp; F'bury)


Haynes, Frank
Soley, Clive


Heffer, Eric S.
Strang, Gavin


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)
Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)


Home Robertson, John
Thorne, Stan (Preston)


Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Wareing, Robert


Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)
Welsh, Michael


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Williams, Rt Hon A.





Wilson, Gordon
Tellers for the Ayes:


Winnick, David
Mr. James Hamilton and



Mr. Don Dixon




NOES


Alexander, Richard
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Henderson, Barry


Arnold, Tom
Hickmet, Richard


Ashby, David
Hicks, Robert


Ashdown, Paddy
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.
Hill, James


Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)
Hind, Kenneth


Baldry, Anthony
Hirst, Michael


Batiste, Spencer
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)


Beggs, Roy
Holt, Richard


Beith, A. J.
Hooson, Tom


Bellingham, Henry
Hordern, Peter


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Howard, Michael


Body, Richard
Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)


Bottomley, Peter
Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Howells, Geraint


Bright, Graham
Hubbard-Miles, Peter


Brittan, Rt Hon Leon
Hunt, David (Wirral)


Brooke, Hon Peter
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Bruce, Malcolm
Hunter, Andrew


Burt, Alistair
Irving, Charles


Butcher, John
Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick


Butterfill, John
Jessel, Toby


Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Jones, Robert (W Herts)


Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (W'ton S)
Kennedy, Charles


Chapman, Sydney
Key, Robert


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Kirkwood, Archibald


Clegg, Sir Walter
Knight, Gregory (Derby N)


Cockeram, Eric
Knight, Mrs Jill (Edgbaston)


Coombs, Simon
Knowles, Michael


Cope, John
Knox, David


Couchman, James
Lang, Ian


Cranborne, Viscount
Latham, Michael


Crouch, David
Lawler, Geoffrey


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Lee, John (Pendle)


Dicks, T.
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)
Lester, Jim


Eggar, Tim
Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)


Favell, Anthony
Lightbown, David


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Lilley, Peter


Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
Lloyd, Ian (Havant)


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)


Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)
Luce, Richard


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Lyell, Nicholas


Fox, Marcus
McCrea, Rev William


Freeman, Roger
McCrindle, Robert


Gale, Roger
McCurley, Mrs Anna


Galley, Roy
McCusker, Harold


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Macfarlane, Neil


Glyn, Dr Alan
MacGregor, John


Goodhart, Sir Philip
MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)


Goodlad, Alastair
Maclean, David John.


Gow, Ian
Maclennan, Robert


Greenway, Harry
Macmillan, Rt Hon M.


Gregory, Conal
McQuarrie, Albert


Griffiths, E. (B'y St Edm'ds)
Maginnis, Ken


Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)
Malins, Humfrey


Ground, Patrick
Malone, Gerald


Grylls, Michael
Maples, John


Gummer, John Selwyn
Marlow, Antony


Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)
Mates, Michael


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Mather, Carol


Hampson, Dr Keith
Maude, Francis


Hanley, Jeremy
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Hannam, John
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Hargreaves, Kenneth
Mayhew, Sir Patrick


Harvey, Robert
Meadowcroft, Michael


Haselhurst, Alan
Mellor, David


Hawkins, C. (High Peak)
Merchant, Piers


Hawksley, Warren
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Hayes, J.
Miller, Hal (B'grove)


Hayward, Robert
Mills, Iain (Meriden)






Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)
Speller, Tony


Miscampbell, Norman
Spence, John


Mitchell, David (NW Hants)
Spencer, D.


Moate, Roger
Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)


Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Stanbrook, Ivor


Montgomery, Fergus
Stanley, John


Morris, M. (N'hampton, S)
Steen, Anthony


Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)
Stern, Michael


Moynihan, Hon C.
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)


Murphy, Christopher
Stevens, Martin (Fulham)


Neale, Gerrard
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Needham, Richard
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Nelson, Anthony
Stradling Thomas, J.


Newton, Tony
Sumberg, David


Nicholls, Patrick
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Norris, Steven
Temple-Morris, Peter


Oppenheim, Philip
Terlezki, Stefan


Ottaway, Richard
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Owen, Rt Hon Dr David
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Page, Richard (Herts SW)
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


Pawsey, James
Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Thornton, Malcolm


Pollock, Alexander
Thurnham, Peter


Powell, Rt Hon J. E. (S Down)
Tracey, Richard


Powell, William (Corby)
Trotter, Neville


Powley, John
Twinn, Dr Ian


Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Proctor, K. Harvey
Viggers, Peter


Raffan, Keith
Waddington, David


Rathbone, Tim
Wainwright, R.


Rhodes James, Robert
Walden, George


Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Wallace, James


Robinson, Mark (N'port W)
Waller, Gary


Robinson, P. (Belfast E)
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Roe, Mrs Marion
Watson, John


Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Watts, John


Rossi, Sir Hugh
Wells, Bowen (Hertford)


Rowe, Andrew
Wheeler, John


Rumbold, Mrs Angela
Wiggin, Jerry


Ryder, Richard
Wilkinson, John


Sackville, Hon Thomas
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
Winterton, Nicholas


Sayeed, Jonathan
Wolfson, Mark


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Wood, Timothy


Shelton, William (Streatham)
Woodcock, Michael


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Yeo, Tim


Silvester, Fred
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Sims, Roger



Skeet, T. H. H.
Tellers for the Noes:


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Mr. John Major and


Soames, Hon Nicholas
Mr. Michael Neubert.

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 3

EXCLUSION ORDERS: GENERAL

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: I beg to move amendment No. 4, in page 3, line 31, leave out '4, 5 or'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Paul Dean): With this, it will be convenient to take the following amendments:
No. 9, in page 4, line 5, leave out Clause 4.
No. 12, in page 4, line 31, leave out Clause 5.
No. 15, in page 5, line 20, leave out from 'enter' to 'with' in line 21, and insert 'the United Kingdom'.
No. 21, in page 7, line 27, leave out 'Great Britain, Northern Ireland or'.
No. 22, in page 7, line 28, leave out from 'Kingdom' to end of line 29.

Mr. Powell: All the other amendments associated with amendment No. 4 are consequential to it, and I hope that no consequentiality, apart from those, has been overlooked.
The effect of the amendment would be to eliminate from the Bill two of the three forms of exclusion order that it contains at present. The three forms of exclusion order are two internal and one external. The two internal are from Great Britain to Northern Ireland and, conversely, from Northern Ireland to Great Britain. The external exclusion is exclusion from the United Kingdom. The amendment leaves in the Bill the third, or external, form of exclusion, but removes what in the previous debate was described perfectly accurately as "internal exile". It leaves external exile — although "exile" is an inappropriate word, since it is applicable only to people who are riot British citizens — but it removes the evil of internal exile.
It may be queried why, in view of what I am to say presently about exclusion orders, one should not get rid of the whole contraption and the entire part of the Bill. There would be considerable attraction in that course except that, when questioned in Committee, the Secretary of State asserted that, although he had powers under existing legislation otherwise to exclude from the United Kingdom, or prevent the entry into the United Kingdom of. undesirable persons under the emigration law, there was a very narrow category of Irish citizens who would not be covered by those powers. He also asserted, although we failed to elicit from him very much illumination of what he meant by it, that the powers in the Bill were more efficient than the powers in other legislation for excluding, or preventing the entry of, non-British citizens in respect of the United Kingdom.
I do not think that in present circumstances we would wish the Home Secretary to lack the efficient power to prevent an alien from entering this country for what the Home Secretary had reason to believe were nefarious purposes, or to terminate his stay herd in similar circumstances. Therefore, the amendment does not touch the power of exclusion from the United Kingdom What it does do, I repeat, is to remove the power to issue an order to a citizen to remove from one part of the United Kingdom to another part of the United Kingdom.
In an earlier debate, the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) said, "We have not much hope of succeeding," and the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) said, "Conservative Governments never learn from experience." I appreciate that both those propositions could be buttressed with a good deal of illustrative material. Nevertheless, I move this amendment in genuine hope because I cannot believe that the Government can go on year after year—with the number of persons excluded under the powers in clauses 4 and 5 dropping from the very large numbers when the Bill was first introduced to a handful at the present time—attempting to justify the maintenance of this utterly unacceptable presence in our law of a power to dictate the position of residence inside the United Kingdom to a British subject or, as it has often been called, the power to impose internal exile.
If the Government had presented to the House a new Bill embodying the powers in clauses 4 and 5, then 1 think hon. Members on both sides of the House would suppose that they had taken leave of their senses. It would be quite inconceivable that, in 1984, any Government, in the


circumstances that now obtain, would have come forward with those powers. But of course, we are not treating this in fact, although we are in form, de novo. We are dealing with powers that have existed on the statute book for 10 years, although we are, with substantial modifications, renewing them by this Bill.
My hon. Friends and I are entitled to ask the House to consider this provision as if it were today for the first time that the Government were asking the House to grant these powers. We would ask the Government, "How many cases do you expect a year will fall within the ambit of the exclusion from Great Britain to Northern Ireland?"—a curious direction and proposition, in any case—and they would, with the benefit of hindsight, reply, "Oh, about 10 or a dozen." We would then say to the Government, "Have you any reason in present circumstances to suppose that you could not provide for security in other ways by the use of the ordinary criminal law without having recourse to this specific power in so tiny a number of cases?"—of which again only a small proportion, as the past evidence shows, will be concerned in terrorist offences.
It would not be made to stand up, it could not be justified, and the continuance of what has always been regarded by the whole House as a blot upon the statute book, and by the people of Northern Ireland as a special slur, a special imposition, upon themselves, could not be justified. The provision nevertheless, appears in the Bill. I ask the House and the Government to recognise that, upon that test which it is reasonable to apply, they do not today propose a new provision of this kind, and that therefore they ought not to be producing a Bill that contains it.
7 pm
There is, I admit, an argument in relation to part I of the Bill that, having had the power to ban an organisation for so long, it is new to bring that power to an end. I concede that suddenly in 1984 to say that the IRA and INLA should not be proscribed organisations would be unreasonable, even had we not proscribed them since 1974. But no possible mischief can come from saying that such has been the experience in the last 10 years that there is no longer any substantial ground in the use made of this power which would justify it remaining on the statute book. Nothing is lost. There is nothing on the other side of the account, nothing that is unacceptable to public opinion, nothing that would outrage a public opinion that has witnessed the continuance of terrorist offences here in Great Britain as well as in Northern Ireland right up to the present day.
Therefore, I am asking the House now to remove from the statute book what might have been justified 10 years ago and in the earlier period of that decenium, though even from the start it was the product more of indignation and panic than of reasoning. Now that the circumstances are so changed, as the factual evidence in the Jellicoe report illustrates, I am asking for this to be removed from the statute book so that we shall no longer be exposed to the charge that we in the United Kingdom, who point the finger at other countries, have on our statute book a power by which a Minister can impose exile from one part of the United Kingdom to another on a British citizen.
Whatever was the argument in years gone by—whatever jocularity may be indulged in at the expense of

those who, at the beginning of that 10-year period, supported or did not oppose this provision—it is time for it to go, and I hope that the House will do right tonight and take it off the statute book.

Mr. Soley: I shall not delay the House, because we have been over many of the arguments already. The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) and I agree on many of the issues about which he spoke in relation to the amendment, and we have debated them at length in Committee and elsewhere. Suffice it to say that the official Opposition will vote for the amendment, for we recognise that this group of amendments would put an end to what we have rightly called "internal exile".

Ms. Clare Short: I, too, support this group of amendments, which would remove from the Bill the power of internal exile. The only exclusion power to remain would be the power to exclude people from the United Kingdom, with no right to exclude people from Northern Ireland to Great Britain or from Great Britain to Northern Ireland.
This power, which was taken rapidly in the wake of the Birmingham bombings, was originally designed only to exclude from Great Britain to Northern Ireland. The symbolism of that was that an explosion or death from terrorist activities in Great Britain was intolerable and unacceptable to this House but that such explosion or death in Northern Ireland was of little concern. That was undoubtedly the symbolism of the original measure and it was subsequent embarrassment—when that was pointed out — that made the Government take the power to exclude people from Northern Ireland to Great Britain, so that it would look like parity and not as though we did not care what happened in Northern Ireland. That is at the root of the power. We should be clear about that, admit it openly and say what a disgrace it is, for if more hon. Members and more people who live in Great Britain had shown more concern for the situation in Northern Ireland we might have found solutions to the problems there a long time ago.
The power is, in any event, strange because by it we say, in effect, that if we move to Northern Ireland certain people who are moved to use force and engage in terrorist activities in Great Britain, things will be safer here, Northern Ireland being the place where, some people feel when considering the political situation there, people wish to use force. It would make more sense, if it was a power designed to prevent terrorism, to exclude people to Cornwall, Orkney or to a place where they would not be constrained to involve themselves in terrorist activities in connection with Northern Ireland. If that were to happen it would cause uproar in this country—I am sure that it would cause uproar in Cornwall and so on—and would be considered intolerable.
The precedent for the power can be found in the Soviet Union, where certain citizens are excluded to Siberia. We take a parallel power, but our Siberia is Northern Ireland; we exclude people to poor old Northern Ireland if we think that they might endanger the public peace in Great Britain. In itself and in principle the power is intolerable.
The Minister said that such a grave and serious action—the use of the power—was taken when there was no evidence against the individual concerned, only when there was intelligence or suspicion—something that


would not hold up before a tribunal or court. In other words, this grave and serious power is used on the basis of very slight evidence.
I am sure that we can agree that the power is in principle objectionable. An argument for it might be that somehow it prevents terrorism and makes things safer. But when we look at the figures we find, as the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) pointed out, that in the last two years only 26 people were excluded. In other words, this deeply offensive power is being used so sparsely that we can consider getting rid of it, even if there ever was a case for it.
In addition, it could be argued that, rather than prevent terrorism, the power could encourage it. Following inquiries that we made in Committee, the Minister wrote to me—the letter was copied to all members of the Committee—giving the figures for people who had been excluded from Great Britain to Northern Ireland and who had subsequently been convicted of being involved in acts of terrorism. The figures are quite large: 15 people for certain and a further 31 convicted of offences that might have been offences connected with terrorism. In other words, because the police or intelligence forces in Great Britain have about certain people a vague suspicion that would not hold up in court, those people are bundled off to Northern Ireland.
We are told that those excluded are closely watched by the security forces, although I note that Lord Jellicoe's report stated that when he was attempting to review old exclusion orders and write to people who had been excluded, half of them could not be found. It is clear, therefore, that it is not the case that those who have been excluded are carefully watched. Thus, in a good many cases, people who were excluded from Great Britain on a vague hunch subsequently went on to involve themselves in violent actions in Northern Ireland. It could be argued that the power has permitted terrorist actions to take place, for had the police been better policemen and had they continued to watch the individuals of whom they were suspicious, they might have been able to arrest them for criminal offences and thus prevent acts of terrorism.
For those reasons, I strongly support the amendments, which would get rid of what must be considered an intolerable power in any society that claims to be free. It is an intolerable power, a power that in its symbolism shows that we care nothing about violence and the troubles in Northern Ireland, and a power that does not prevent, but could be argued to perpetuate, terrorism.

Mr. Waddington: We fully appreciate that it is a serious matter to deprive a British citizen of the right to move freely in his own country, and hon. Members will be aware that Lord Jellicoe said that he found consideration of the exclusion order powers the most difficult part of his task. These provisions, distasteful though they are, remain a sad necessity, so long as the threat from terrorism connected with Northern Irish affairs remains with us, a fact which none of us can now doubt.
It has been suggested that these provisions are unnecessary because they do not work and it has been said that they did not prevent the Harrods bombing. That is rather like saying that there is no point in having any police powers because crime is still committed. The truth is that the essentially preventive nature of the exclusion powers makes their effectiveness extremely difficult to judge. The system comes into operation only when there can be no

question of a prosecution because of the sensitivity of the intelligence on which cases are based. To expose such intelligence in court could, in some cases, endanger lives, and would inevitably prejudice the gathering of further intelligence from the same source.
I accept that we who are closely involved in the operation of the system are not perhaps best placed to make a judgment on how it is used, and for this reason we must place great weight on Lord Jellicoe's judgment. He carried out a very careful examination of a large number of exclusion cases. He talked at length to those involved in the operation of the system and he concluded that it
has played a significant part in preventing acts of terrorism, or in making the commission of terrorist acts more difficult
and that,
regrettably, the power cannot simply be abolished at present".
In agreeing with that conclusion, the Government share particularly Lord Jellicoe's feelings of regret that such exceptional measures remain necessary.
It has also been said that the power to exclude persons from Great Britain has made Northern Ireland a dumping ground for terrorists. That is despite the reciprocal provisions allowing exclusion from Northern Ireland as well as from Great Britain which were introduced in the 1976 Act after an amendment to that effect had been tabled in Committee by the right hon. Member for Down. South (Mr. Powell).
As an illustration, reference is made to the large number of British citizens excluded from Great Britain—268 since the legislation was introduced compared with only seven from Northern Ireland. As I said in Committee, that is no more than a reflection of the fact that the vast majority of British citizens involved in Northern Irish terrorism originate, as one would expect, from Northern Ireland.
A separate argument is involved in amendment No. 15, because different considerations arise. That amendment would remove the Secretary of State's power to make an exclusion order against a non-British citizen whom he was satisfied was attempting to enter Great Britain or Northern Ireland from another part of the United Kingdom with a view to being involved in acts of terrorism.
The power would be exercised against such persons only if they were attempting to enter the United Kingdom from outside. So long as there is a risk that non-British citizens will travel from Northern Ireland to Great Britain, or in the opposite direction in pursuit of their evil deeds, I believe that the power to exclude from the United Kingdom should be retained.
I take no comfort from the fact that circumstances still require the retention of these exceptional measures. We all fervently hope that the time will come, sooner rather than later, when the provisions will be allowed to lapse. As I said in reply to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery), simply because we realise that these are serious powers we have tried to mitigate their effects. Everyone, even those who disagree with the maintenance of the powers, will appreciate that.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Is the Minister seriously saying that the purpose is, in the case of a non-British citizen present in the United Kingdom, to catch him at his nefarious intentions when he is passing between Great Britain and Northern ireland and to erect a new and artificial barrier and net against non-British citizens who


happen to be in the United Kingdom for terrorist purposes?
That is a novel view of the background to the exclusion order. Is that seriously the intention?
The shoulder title of clause 6 is
Orders excluding persons from the United Kingdom".
That appears to be the purpose of clause 6, yet the Minister is telling the House that inside clause 6 he is maintaining an internal barrier, as one might have a road block on the M1, at which people can be intercepted in their movements within the United Kingdom.

Mr. Waddington: The right hon. Gentleman explained why he decided not to table an amendment to delete clause 6. He was saying that he was content for the time being that there should be a power to exclude from the United Kingdom and therefore, I should have thought, a power to prevent people from entering the United Kingdom. One does not "enter" the United Kingdom if one is an Irish national travelling from Ulster to Great Britain and therefore there would be a gap in the legislation.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 94, Noes 208.

Division No. 140]
[7.17 pm


AYES


Alton, David
Leighton, Ronald


Barron, Kevin
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
Lewis, Terence (Worsley)


Beggs, Roy
Litherland, Robert


Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Bermingham, Gerald
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Blair, Anthony
McCartney, Hugh


Boyes, Roland
McCrea, Rev William


Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Buchan, Norman
McGuire, Michael


Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


Campbell-Savours, Dale
McKelvey, William


Canavan, Dennis
McNamara, Kevin


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
McWilliam, John


Clay, Robert
Madden, Max


Cohen, Harry
Maginnis, Ken


Cook, Frank (Stockton North)
Maxton, John


Corbyn, Jeremy
Maynard, Miss Joan


Cowans, Harry
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'I)
Nellist, David


Dewar, Donald
Parry, Robert


Dormand, Jack
Patchett, Terry


Dubs, Alfred
Powell, Rt Hon J. E. (S Down)


Eastham, Ken
Prescott, John


Ellis, Raymond
Redmond, M.


Evans, John (St. Helens N)
Richardson, Ms Jo


Fatchett, Derek
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Faulds, Andrew
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)


Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)
Robinson, P. (Belfast E)


Fisher, Mark
Rogers, Allan


Flannery, Martin
Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)


Foster, Derek
Sedgemore, Brian


Garrett, W. E.
Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)


George, Bruce
Skinner, Dennis


Godman, Dr Norman
Smith, C.(Isl'ton S &amp; F'bury)


Golding, John
Snape, Peter


Harman, Ms Harriet
Soley, Clive


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Strang, Gavin


Haynes, Frank
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Heffer, Eric S.
Thorne, Stan (Preston)


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Wareing, Robert


Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)
Welsh, Michael


Home Robertson, John
Williams, Rt Hon A.


Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)
Winnick, David


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)



Janner, Hon Greville
Tellers for the Ayes:


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Mr. Harold McCusker and


Leadbitter, Ted
Mr. Clifford Forsythe.





NOES


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Johnson-Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Arnold, Tom
Jones, Robert (W Herts)


Ashby, David
Key, Robert


Ashdown, Paddy
Kirkwood, Archibald


Baldry, Anthony
Knight, Gregory (Derby N)


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Knight, Mrs Jill (Edgbaston)


Beith, A. J.
Knowles, Michael


Bellingham, Henry
Knox, David


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Lang, Ian


Body, Richard
Latham, Michael


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Lawler, Geoffrey


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Britian, Rt Hon Leon
Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)


Bruce, Malcolm
Lightbown, David


Burt, Alistair
Lilley, Peter


Butcher, John
Lloyd, Ian (Havant)


Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)
Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Luce, Richard


Chapman, Sydney
Lyell, Nicholas


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
McCurley, Mrs Anna


Clegg, Sir Walter
Macfarlane, Neil


Coombs, Simon
MacGregor, John


Cope, John
MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)


Cormack, Patrick
Maclean, David John.


Cranborne, Viscount
Maclennan, Robert


Crouch, David
Macmillan, Rt Hon M.


Currie, Mrs Edwina
McQuarrie, Albert


Dicks, T.
Malins, Humfrey


Eggar, Tim
Malone, Gerald


Fallon, Michael
Maples, John


Favell, Anthony
Marlow, Antony


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Mates, Michael


Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
Mather, Carol


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Maude, Francis


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Fox, Marcus
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Freeman, Roger
Meadowcroft, Michael


Gale, Roger
Mellor, David


Galley, Roy
Merchant, Piers


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Miller, Hal (B'grove)


Glyn, Dr Alan
Mills, Iain (Meriden)


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)


Goodlad, Alastair
Miscampbell, Norman


Greenway, Harry
Montgomery, Fergus


Griffiths, E. (B'y St Edm'ds)
Morris, M. (N'hampton, S)


Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)
Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)


Grylls, Michael
Moynihan, Hon C.


Gummer, John Selwyn
Murphy, Christopher


Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)
Neale, Gerrard


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Needham, Richard


Hampson, Dr Keith
Nelson, Anthony


Hanley, Jeremy
Neubert, Michael


Hannam, John
Newton, Tony


Hargreaves, Kenneth
Nicholls, Patrick


Harvey, Robert
Norris, Steven


Haselhurst, Alan
Onslow, Cranley


Hawkins, C. (High Peak)
Ottaway, Richard


Hawksley, Warren
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David


Hayes, J.
Pawsey, James


Hayward, Robert
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Pollock, Alexander


Henderson, Barry
Powell, William (Corby)


Hickmet, Richard
Powley, John


Hicks, Robert
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Proctor, K. Harvey


Hill, James
Raffan, Keith


Hind, Kenneth
Rathbone, Tim


Hirst, Michael
Rhodes James, Robert


Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Hooson, Tom
Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey


Howard, Michael
Robinson, Mark (N'port W)


Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)
Roe, Mrs Marion


Howells, Geraint
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Hunt, David (Wirral)
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Ryder, Richard


Hunter, Andrew
Sackville, Hon Thomas


Irving, Charles
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick
Sayeed, Jonathan


Jessel, Toby
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')






Shelton, William (Streatham)
Tracey, Richard


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Trotter, Neville


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Silvester, Fred
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Sims, Roger
Viggers, Peter


Skeet, T. H. H.
Waddington, David


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Wainwright, R.


Soames, Hon Nicholas
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Speller, Tony
Wallace, James


Spence, John
Waller, Gary


Spencer, D.
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)
Watts, John


Stanbrook, Ivor
Wells, Bowen (Hertford)


Stanley, John
Wilkinson, John


Stern, Michael
Wilson, Gordon


Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Stevens, Martin (Fulham)
Winterton, Nicholas


Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)
Wolfson, Mark


Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)
Wood, Timothy


Stradling Thomas, J.
Woodcock, Michael


Sumberg, David
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)
Yeo, Tim


Temple-Morris, Peter
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Thomas, Rt Hon Peter



Thompson, Donald (Calder V)
Tellers for the Noes:


Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)
Mr. Douglas Hogg and


Thornton, Malcolm
Mr. John Major.

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. Alex Carlile: I beg to move amendment No. 5, in page 3, line 36, leave out 'three' and insert 'two'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 49, in clause 18, page 14, line 28, leave out 'three' and insert 'two'.

Mr. Carlile: I shall be brief, but I hope that my brevity will not be regarded as an intention in any way to dilute the importance of the amendments. The duration of exclusion orders proposed by the Bill—a period of three years—is a considerable improvement on the present provision and my hon. Friends and I regard that as highly commendable. However, we think that three years is still a very long time.
It would be possible to produce a catalogue, indeed a magazine, of cases in which injustice or undue hardship had occurred because of an exclusion order for a period in excess of two years. I do not propose, because I do not feel I need to, to give the House a series of hard luck stories which have arisen under the provisions of the existing and previous legislation.
One must bear in mind that under the Bill the Home Secretary would in any event have the power to invoke a further exclusion order after the operational period of the initial or subsequent order. Accordingly, we invite the Minister of State to accept that two years is long enough.

Mr. Waddington: Under the 1976 Act, exclusion orders remain in force indefinitely unless or until they are revoked by the Secretary of State. Lord Jellicoe saw no reason why they should not have a fixed life and accordingly recommended that henceforth they should be for a fixed term of three years, after which they would automatically expire. He also recommended that if it were considered necessary to continue a person's exclusion beyond that period it should be on the basis of a fresh application by the police, detailing recent intelligence on the person and setting out the reasons why exclusion remained necessary. Thus, a new exclusion order would have to be made by the Secretary of State if exclusion were to continue for longer than three years.
7.30 pm
Of course, there is nothing magical about the period of three years and the hon. Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) has not suggested that there is anything magical about two years. As with many of Lord Jellicoe's recommendations, however, the proposal is the outcome of a painstaking process, balancing hardship for the individual against the need to protect the safety of the public. The period must be sufficient to allow a person to mend his ways if that is his intention and for the Secretary of State to be reasonably certain that he has done so. In some cases this would involve fairly fundamental changes in the person's way of life. The period must also be sufficient for the police to decide, on the evidence of the person's activities during that period, whether involvement in terrorism had continued and whether a fresh application for a new exclusion order should be made.
I see no advantages and some disadvantages in changing the period to two years. In some cases it may be a difficult and lengthy process for the individual to sever all links with his terrorist past. Equally, we must be mindful of the fact that the shorter the period in which the person has to appear quiescent, the greater the risk that he will resume his former activities afterwards. Lord Jellicoe considered that three years was the right period for the purpose and the Government have accepted his recommendation. I see no merit in the amendments and I ask the House to reject them.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Waddington: I beg to move amendment No. 7, in page 4, line 2, leave out
'(whether in the United Kingdom or elsewhere)'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 10, 13 and 14.

Mr. Waddington: I need not detain the House for long. Our object is to be consistent in the way in which the territorial ambit of each part of the Bill is defined. The amendments do not alter the effect of the provisions. When considering making exclusion orders, the Secretary of State will still be able to take into account acts of terrorism committed anywhere in the world, always provided that they are connected with Northern Irish affairs.
In Committee I moved an amendment the effect of which was to make the acts of terrorism referred to in part III, which creates offences in relation to contributions to and information about acts of terrorism in connection with Northern Ireland, unlimited territorially. I also gave an assurance that further amendments would be introduced on Report to achieve uniformity of approach to such references, and that we have now done. If the House accepts the amendments, the position will be that only where the terrorist activity referred to is to have a territorial limitation will there be any qualifying words, as in clause 1(4) where it is intended that before there can be proscription the terrorism must be limited to the United Kingdom. Where the terrorism referred to can have been committed anywhere, there will be no qualifying words.
The new approach embodied in the amendments was prompted by arguments put forward in Committee by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell), who suggested that the words in question were unnecessary and might even be misleading. Indeed, the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues have tabled an amendment


to clause 6 which is identical with the Government's amendment. I am always grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for drawing attention to possible improvements in the Bill. I ask the House to accept the amendments.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: I have no doubt that the Government amendments are an improvement and a clarification so far as they go, but it might be wise to put down a marker at this point. It is remarkable that, with the exception of part I, the limitation of which to the affairs of Northern Ireland is ipso facto, the other parts of the Bill refer in some cases to terrorism related to Northern Ireland, but part IV relates to terrorism almost totally at large. Many of us do not believe that we have got the definition of terrorism totally at large right or that there is justification for limiting the powers in parts II and III, in so far as they are justified at all, to terrorism related only to Northern Ireland. Although if a different point of view were taken it might involve an amendment to clause 3(6), the matter might more conveniently be debated when we reach clause 12. I therefore leave the matter there, having put down that marker at this stage.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 4

ORDERS EXCLUDING PERSONS FROM GREAT BRITAIN

Amendment made: No. 10, in page 4, line 6, leave out
'(whether in Great Britain or elsewhere)'.— [Mr.
Waddington.]

Clause 5

ORDERS EXCLUDING PERSONS FROM NORTHERN IRELAND

Amendment made: No. 13, in page 4, line 32, leave out
'(whether in Northern Ireland or elsewhere)'.— [Mr. Waddington.]

Clause 6

ORDERS EXCLUDING PERSONS FROM THE UNITED KINGDOM

Amendment made: No. 14, in page 5, line 16, leave out
'(whether in the United Kingdom or elsewhere)'.— [Mr. Waddington.]

Clause 7

RIGHT TO MAKE REPRESENTATIONS TO SECRETARY OF STATE ETC.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: I beg to move amendment No. 18, in page 6, line 34, leave out from 'interview' to end of line 4 on page 7.
The amendment removes from the Bill a most extraordinary provision. In considering this, I believe that the Committee finished rather more puzzled than when it started, and certainly far from satisfied that the Government had thought through the implications of what they appeared to be doing.
The amendment seeks to delete the remainder of subsection (8) after the word "interview" and the whole of subsections (9) and (10). The provision up to the point of the proposed deletion contains the thoroughly intelligible arrangement that

the person against whom the exclusion order has been made shall be granted a personal interview with the person or persons so nominated if it appears to the Secretary of State that it is reasonably practicable to grant him such an interview".
Up to that point, the provision is at large and would cover an interview arranged by the Secretary of State in any circumstances that the Secretary of State thought reasonably practicable. However, the clause then refers to
an appropriate country or territory
and defines that in the way set out in subsection (9). For an exclusion from Great Britain, the appropriate territory is Northern Ireland or the Republic of Ireland. For an exclusion from Northern Ireland, the appropriate territory is Great Britain or the Republic of Ireland. For an exclusion altogether from the United Kingdom, the appropriate territory is the Republic of Ireland.
That seems to us to give undue weight and significance to the Republic of Ireland in this connection. It may well be that it is mostly to the Republic of Ireland that persons excluded under any of these powers, and especially that in clause 6, will resort, but that does not seem sufficient reason to restrict the matter in that way, having given the Secretary of State power to arrange an interview where he thinks it reasonably practicable to do so. Why should it be reasonably practicable only in the Irish Republic?
Very difficult matters of jurisdiction and relationship between neighbouring independent states are raised if United Kingdom legislation gives the Irish Republic a special position and provides that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland may specify a place in the Republic. It was suggested that he might specify a place in Dublin. Perhaps I may give him a tip. If he is on that line, Dundalk might serve better. As it stands, the Bill would allow the Secretary of State to specify a place in the territory of another country in which to arrange for interviews with persons coming within the ambit of an exclusion order.
It seems to many of us that it is an improper provision in United Kingdom legislation to make such arrangements and that, even if it were envisaged that an interview could be arranged at a British consulate or embassy, there is no reason to restrict it to the Irish Republic in this way or to put ourselves in the position of treating the Irish Republic and the United Kingdom as a type of joint jurisdiction in any place in which the Secretary of State can arrange for interviews with persons to whom exclusion orders apply.
The Minister must give a clearer and more satisfactory answer than he gave in Committee to satisfy my right hon. and hon. Friends and me that he has made out a case for this peculiar provision.

Mr. Proctor: In Committee an exchange occurred between my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State and me, in terms of custom and practice, about where he envisaged such interviews, if conducted in the Republic, would take place. After some consideration, my hon. and learned Friend said that the interviews would be in the embassy. He said:
I cannot…envisage circumstances in which it would be decided that it would be more convenient to hold them elsewhere." — [Official Report, Standing Committee D, 22 November 1983; c. 205.]
Will my hon. and learned Friend go a little further than that and say that any such interview, conducted in the Republic, will be only at our embassy in Dublin?

Mr. Waddington: I do not want to spend too long reminding the House of the effect of clause 7, but it is an improvement on the earlier legislation. It increases the right of a person to make representations.
The effect of the amendment would be that a person, having consented to removal and having made representations within the requisite period, would be granted an interview only if it appeared reasonably practicable to the Secretary of State to grant it, and the clause will be silent as to when the interview might be held. That certainly does not reflect Lord Jellicoe's intention. In recommending,
The right to an interview should apply to all persons excluded— whether from Great Britain, Northern Ireland or the United Kingdom as a whole—provided that they have been removed within the United Kingdom or to the Republic of Ireland",
Lord Jellicoe, at paragraph 195, said that
it would be clearly unreasonable for the Adviser to have to travel further than this to conduct an interview.
Objection has been raised to the fact that clause 7 provides specifically for interviews in the Republic of Ireland. It has been argued that if provision is to be made for interviews outside the United Kingdom, the facility should not be limited to one specified country. The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) is right. I do not believe that one can elevate this to a matter of principle. The fact is that people excluded because of their involvement in terrorism connected with Northern Ireland affairs are almost invariably removed to Northern Ireland, Great Britain or the Republic of Ireland, which is what we would expect.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: The Minister quoted Lord Jellicoe as referring to cases where the removal was specifically to the Republic of Ireland and he recommended this provision in that context. It does not appear that there is any such limitation in the Bill, as drafted, which simply takes the Republic of Ireland as the only place outside the United Kingdom where such interviews can be arranged. I accept the Minister's point that the words "within a reasonable period" to the end of the subsection do not form part of my argument and ought reasonably to remain part of the subsection.

Mr. Waddington: I am looking at the heavy type in page 76, paragraph 195, wherein Lord Jellicoe states:
The right to an interview should apply to all persons excluded—whether from Great Britain, Northern Ireland or the United Kingdom as a whole—provided that they have been removed within the United Kingdom or to the Republic of Ireland".
It seems clear that Lord Jellicoe intended that a interview should take place in a part of the United Kingdom or the Republic of Ireland. I am sure that he was not envisaging the circumstance in which a person was removed to the Republic of Ireland and then decided of his own volition to go on to Australia. It would be an extraordinary use of public money in those circumstances to say that the man who had been removed to the Republic of Ireland should be entitled to have an interview, even if he went to Australia.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: I do not believe that the Minister has quite taken my point. He has made it clear that the Jellicoe recommendation is not implemented by the clause as it stands, because the clause does not refer only to persons who have been removed to the Republic of

Ireland. Lord Jellicoe refers to persons removed to the Republic of Ireland or from one part of the United Kingdom to another. There is no such limitation, so far as I can understand it, in the clause as it stands. The clause seems to refer to exclusion orders under clause 6 applying to anywhere outside the United Kingdom, not only to the Republic of Ireland. Even in those cases where there has been a removal under clause 6—not to the Republic of Ireland — an interview can be arranged only in the Republic of Ireland, if I have construed the clause correctly. Does the Minister agree that the clause does not in its present form conform with Lord Jellicoe's recommendation and needs reconsideration in the light of the apparent discrepancy between the Jellicoe report and the natural construction of the clause?

Mr. Waddington: I must confess that I find the right hon. Gentleman's argument somewhat difficult to follow, but any argument advanced by him is worth considering, and I promise to do so.
Perhaps we are all falling into the trap which time and again we envisaged in Committee. We tend often to talk about people being removed to the Republic of Ireland, but we are talking about people removed from the United Kingdom. I understand that Lord Jellicoe was talking about the circumstance in which a person was removed from the United Kingdom and finished up somewhere else in the world. Lord Jellicoe said that in those circumstances it was not reasonable to expect interviews to be held anywhere other than in the Republic of Ireland if the person concerned had been removed from the United Kingdom.
In replying to my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mr. Proctor), I cannot go further than I did before. I stated plainly in Committee that the chances were that the interview would be in the obviously convenient place, which is the British embassy. I do not see why we should be expected to tie our hands in that regard. One can imagine circumstances in which it might be convenient to hold the interviews elsewhere.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Waddington: I beg to move amendment No. 19, in page 7, line 19, leave out 'notify' and insert
'give notice in writing to'.
The Government tabled the amendment to fulfil a commitment made in Committee when we accepted in principle the spirit of an Opposition amendment, the effect of which would have been identical to that of amendment No. 19. Indeed, it was only for drafting reasons that the amendment was not accepted in Committee.
Amendment No. 19 enshrines in the Bill what has always been the practice. Excluded persons who make representations against their exclusion are notified in writing of the Secretary of State's decision on their representations. That is generally done by an official, acting for and on behalf of the Secretary of State, and the notification is sent either directly to the excluded person or, if his representations have been made through a legal representative, through that representative.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 9

OFFENCES UNDER PART II

Mr. Waddington: I beg to move amendment No. 23, in page 7, line 40, leave out from 'above' to 'he' in line 42.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 27 to 30.

Mr. Waddington: These are drafting amendments. Amendment No. 23 is designed to eliminate unnecessary repetition and amendments Nos. 27 to 30 are designed to remove possible ambiguity in the drafting. They do not alter the effect of the clause.
The need for an improvement in the wording of clause 9(2) was drawn to our attention in Committee by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) and, although the method of making that improvement has been more complex than he or we envisaged at the time, we are, as always, grateful to him for his contribution to the clarity and certainty of the legislation.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: I beg to move amendment No. 24, in page 8, line 3, after 'the' insert 'presence in or'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 25, in page 8, line 3, leave out from 'Britain' to 'of in line 4 and insert 'or Northern Ireland'.
No. 26, in page 8, line 4, leave out from 'of' to 'he' in line 10 and insert
'any other person in contravention of an exclusion order'.

Mr. Powell: I hope that the amendments will enable me to earn another golden opinion from the Minister or his advisers. The difficulty that subsection (2) presents at first sight is the difference between
knowingly concerned in arrangements for securing or facilitating the entry
and
in Great Britain, Northern Ireland or the United Kingdom knowingly harbours".
It does not seem obvious that harbouring covers knowingly being concerned in
arrangements for securing or facilitating
the presence of a person in Great Britain. In other words, if a person is in Great Britain, the only offence is harbouring him. If a person is not in Great Britain, Northern Ireland or the United Kingdom, as the case may be, the offence is knowingly being concerned in
arrangements for securing or facilitating
his entry.
If the term "harbours" includes making
arrangements for securing or facilitating
a person's remaining in the countries concerned, there is not the lack of symmetry between the two paragraphs that there appears to be. However, that does not seem to be the natural meaning of "harbours".
The amendments would provide that
knowingly concerned in arrangements for securing or facilitating
referred both to entry and to remaining or being in the country concerned. The opportunity has also been taken to substitute "the United Kindom" for
Great Britain, Northern Ireland or the United Kingdom".
It is an apparent paradox to separate by the disjunctive "or" the parts of the United Kingdom from the United Kingdom itself.

If the Minister says, "Aha, but what I have in mind is a foreigner roaming around in the United Kingdom and this is to catch him as he is passing from Great Britain to Northern Ireland," I suggest that he will need a much more elaborate qualification of the terms of subsection (2) to secure that effect.
I hope that I have succeeded in making clear to the Minister the difficulty that prompted my hon. Friends and myself to table the amendments and that he will refer to the paradox involving
Great Britain, Northern Ireland or the United Kingdom".

Mr. Waddington: I am sorry to disappoint the right hon. Gentleman, but, just as there were no orchids for Miss Blandish, there are, on this occasion, no accolades for Mr. Powell. I cannot accept his advice.
Amendments Nos. 24 and 26 would replace the offence of harbouring a person subject to an exclusion order with a new offence of being
knowingly concerned in arrangements for securing or facilitating
the presence of an excluded person in the part of the country from which he has been excluded by order.
The effect would be possibly to widen, and certainly to blur, the scope of the offence. "Harbouring" is a well-established word which has been interpreted by the courts on many occasions. Everybody knows that it means giving shelter to a person in one way or another. "Facilitating the presence" of a person does not have a comparably clear meaning. Presumably it would encompass the provision of shelter. I do not know whether it would include finding the man a job. It might; it might not. It is certainly not a concept known to English law and we should be rash to throw overboard the well-known offence of harbouring, and substitute for it a new offence of knowingly being
concerned with arrangements for securing or facilitating the presence of an excluded person.
Amendment No. 25 would remove the reference to the United Kingdom for subsection (2)(a), presumably on the ground that the references to entry to Northern Ireland or Great Britain are sufficient. I accept that argument in principle, but the three references reflect the three types of exclusion order in part II of the Bill — from Great Britain, Northern Ireland and the United Kingdom. I think that to remove one of them would detract from the clarity of the clause.
The Government amendments that we have made to clause 9 are designed to clarify the references to areas and territories from which persons are excluded in relation to those in which the offences are committed. We undertook to examine what the right hon. Member for Down, South said in Committee about the possible ambiguity to which the word "there" gives rise in clause 9(2) and we have done so in amendments that the House has already approved. We met the right hon. Gentleman's point in a different form from that which he proposed.

Amendment negatived.

Amendments made: No, 27, in page 8, line 4, after 'of, insert
'a person whom he knows, or has reasonable grounds for believing, to be an excluded person'.
No. 28, in page 8, line 6, at end insert 'such a person'.
No. 29, in page 8, line 7, leave out from beginning to `he' in line 10.
No. 30, in page 8, line 10, at end insert—
'(2A) In subsection (2) above "excluded person" means—'.



(a) in relation to Great Britain, a person subject to an exclusion order made under section 4 above who has been, or has become liable to be, removed from Great Britain under section 8 above;
(b) in relation to Northern Ireland, a person subject to an exclusion order made under section 5 above who has been, or has become liable to be, removed from Northern Ireland under section 8 above; and
(c) in relation to the United Kingdom, a person subject to an exclusion order made inder section 6 above who has been, or has become liable to be, removed from the United Kingdom under section 8 above.'.—[Mr. Waddington.]

Clause 10

CONTRIBUTIONS TOWARDS ACTS OF TERRORISM

8 pm

Mr. Waddington: I beg to move amendment No. 32, in page 9, line 11, at end insert—
'(6) In this section "property" includes—

(a) in England and Wales and Northern Ireland, both real and personal property; and
(b) in Scotland, both heritable and moveable property.'.

This amendment is designed to clarify the meaning of "property" as it is used in clause 10, under which it is an offence to solicit, invite, receive, accept or make available "any money or other property" as a contribution towards acts of terrorism connected with Northern Irish affairs.
The intention has always been that property should include all types of possessions, including land or buildings, cars, domestic goods and personal belongings, and the amendment is designed to make this clear. It has been prepared following a judgment in an unreported Northern Ireland case, in which the Lord Chief Justice for Northern Ireland took the view that "property" did not necessarily include a house. The amendment is introduced for the avoidance of doubt in the future.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 12

POWERS OF ARREST AND DETENTION.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Leon Brittan: I beg to move amendment No. 33, in page 10, line 3, leave out 'A' and insert
'Subject to subsection (1A) below, a'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendment No. 36.

Mr. Brittan: This amendment is designed to clarify the grounds for arrest contained in clause 12(1)(c), which provides that a person who is reasonably suspected of being subject to an exclusion order may be arrested and detained. This provision is intended to cover the case of a person who is in the country or territory from which he is excluded, and who is thus in breach of the order. We have taken this opportunity to make it clear that the power in clause 12(1)(c) may not be used against a person merely because he is the subject of an exclusion order but only when he is suspected of having breached that order.
We have no reason to think that the similar power of arrest in the 1976 Act has ever been used in the way which this amendment will ensure is not available under the Bill. In practice the great majority of arrests under clause 12 take place under 12(1)(b), on the ground that the person concerned is suspected of involvement in terrorism.

Nevertheless, we felt that this point should be clarified. I hope that the House will show that it agrees with that judgment by accepting the amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Powell: I beg to move amendment No. 34, in page 10, line 7, after 'concerned', insert 'in the United Kingdom'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 35, in page 10, leave out line 9 and insert
'(wherever committed or to be committed)'.
No. 37, in page 10, line 11, leave out subsection (2).

Mr. Powell: Amendment No. 34 introduces a very large problem attaching to the Bill, on which the Standing Committee spent a considerable time. It may come as a surprise to hon. Members who have not devoted much attention to this Bill to realise that part IV—the powers of arrest and detention and powers at ports — is not concerned with the same definition of terrorism as is the rest of the Bill. The rest of the Bill is concerned with terrorism in respect of the affairs of Northern Ireland.
Part IV is concerned with terrorism at large, and that raises two questions for my hon. Friends and myself. First, whether or not the anti-terrorist legislation includes the objectionable exclusion powers which unfortunately are still to stand part of the Bill—notably the power of exclusion under clause 6. What is the justification in 1984 for restricting those powers to terrorism concerned with the affairs of Northern Ireland when we are vulnerable in London and other parts of the United Kingdom to terrorism of a wider kind, purport and ambit? An obsolete approach has been retained in the Bill, which bears the marks of its origins in 1974, in that all portions of it except part IV are related exclusively to terrorism concerned with the affairs of Northern Ireland. We would therefore have wished to have had an opportunity which has not been available in the course of this consideration of the Bill to seek to widen the definition of terrorism for the purposes of parts II and III.
That brings me to the other problem, which resulted in long debates in Committee. What is to be the definition of terrorism, other than terrorism connected with Northern Ireland? There is only one restriction upon the meaning of terrorism in clause 12 as it stands, and that is the provision in subsection 2(b) which excludes terrorism concerned with the affairs of
any part of the United Kingdom other than Northern Ireland.
Presumably that means Scottish, Welsh or—for aught I know—English nationalist terrorists or the like. That is not a satisfactory definition, or lack of definition, of terrorism. That became clear when we considered it in Committee. A terrorist act committed in some other part of the world in a cause with which the United Kingdom as such is not concerned is still terrorism within the definition clause of the Bill. Hence there is the possibility that a person living peaceably in this country who nevertheless had been concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism elsewhere in the world which in no way involved the interests of the United Kingdom would be brought within the powers of part IV of the Bill.
There were long debates on this matter in Committee, as the Home Secretary will know, and I think that at the end of them the Committee was very uneasy about the


form of the clause as it stood. It might only be a theoretical possibility that the power would be used against a person who was a terrorist against some atrocious regime in some other part of the world, but that person would be covered by clause 12.
The clue to the optimum definition of terrorism for the purposes of part IV—and indeed, my hon. Friends and I would argue, for the purposes of parts II and III of the Bill—is to be found in the wording of clause 3(6), which defines acts of terrorism for part II of the Bill as
acts of terrorism…designed to influence public opinion or Government policy with respect to affairs in Northern Ireland.
I suggest that the essence of that terrorism against which we seek to legislate is that it is directed to influencing policy and opinion in the United Kingdom. That is recognised by the Government in their drafting of clause 3(6), where terrorism designed to influence policy and opinion in respect of Northern Ireland is designated as the terrorism aimed at by the provisions of part II.
If we are to legislate in part IV in the same sense and spirit, which I believe is the logical one, we ought to use that definition in part IV and apply part IV to terrorism, with whatever it is concerned, that is designed to influence the opinion and policy of the United Kingdom. This would deal with what, obviously, we would wish to deal with in the 1980s—terrorist offences in the United Kingdom or anywhere else—of which the object is to enforce upon this country a policy or an opinion which otherwise it would not entertain. The essence of the terrorism which we seek to bring within the Bill is terrorism aimed at the public opinion or the Government policy of this country.
The Secretary of State is entitled to remark that what I have just said in moving this amendment is distinctly wide of the amendment. I both apologise and offer my explanation, which is that the attempt to restrict terrorism in clause 12 by restricting it to acts committed in the United Kingdom does not appear to meet the case with which the Committee was attempting to cope in its discussions on clause 12. It is in clause 3(6), as my hon. Friends would have sought to amend it if we had had the opportunity, that the correct model is to be found for the definition of terrorism for the purposes of part IV.
Therefore, I hope that I may be taken to have moved this amendment as a means to open up the debate on the definition of terrorism in part IV. It remains only to mention the extraordinary exclusion in subsection (2)(b) which seeks to exclude United Kingdom terrorism other than United Kingdom terrorism concerned with Northern Ireland. Why on earth, when terrorist acts are being committed, for example, in Wales with a view to influencing public opinion and Government policy and why, when we know that there is a link between terrorism in Wales and terrorism in Northern Ireland, we should go to this length to prevent the powers in part IV being used against persons, whether they belong to the Angry Brigade, the Scottish National Liberation Army or whoever they may be, who could present an equal threat to security in some part of the United Kingdom I must admit passes my comprehension, and evidently passed the comprehension of the Committee when it considered this clause.
The proposition that I am putting to the Home Secretary and the Government is that they should take a new look at the problem of the definition of terrorism for the

purposes of part IV. If we are to have these extended powers of arrest and detention which, when internal exile has gone, will be virtually the only remaining effective part of the Bill, we should have a definition that will stand up to examination and the prospective changes of the coming years. The present definition does not do that. It is too wide in one respect, in that it covers terrorism in other parts of the world not directed to influencing opinion or policy in the United Kingdom. In another respect, it is too narrow in that it excludes terrorism inside the United Kingdom for purposes other than those connected with Northern Ireland.
That is not a sufficient foundation for the serious powers of arrest and detention with which this part of the Bill arms the Government. Therefore, I ask the Home Secretary, when he comes to the debate, to deal with the problem in the widest ambit and to accept as contributions to the debate the amendments both to clause 3(6) and to clause 12(1) and (2) which have been tabled by my hon. Friends and myself.

Mr. Proctor: I am placed in a little difficulty by the group of amendments tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell), because I agree with half the purpose and aim of these amendments but not with the other half. I support my right hon. Friend's comments about domestic terrorism. In Committee I moved an amendment to try to include domestic terrorism within the scope of clause 12 and my right hon. Friend and my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) were good enough to support that amendment on a Division.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State and his Ministers said that as Lord Jellicoe had advised against it we should not proceed down that road at the moment, but should wait on events. I call that posture waiting for the horse to bolt before shutting the stable door. If we were legislating at the Government's behest to widen the scope of the Act and the reference to Northern Ireland terrorism, there would not be any logic or reason in not including domestic terrorism. I shall not weary the House with a list of recent domestic terrorist activities. The list is there for those hon. Members who wish to look at the report of the Committee, and it is a long list of domestic terrorism not related to Northern Ireland perpetrated throughout the United Kingdom.
Although it was not a violent or terrorist attack, but a criminal one, there has been an attack in the past few days on the home of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department. This was a disgraceful attack by an organisation which, in other guises, has sent letter bombs through the post and perpetrated terrorist activity.

Ms Clare Short: I assume that the reference to an attack on the Under-Secretary's home is the attack by the Animal Liberation Front. I do not understand the hon. Gentleman's anxiety to extend the law to deal with such activity, as that attack was a criminal offence and there is therefore no need to extend the laws to cope with such people.

Mr. Proctor: I accept what the hon. Lady says about that event. I was merely noting that the organisation has in recent years perpetrated terrorist-style activities which bring other organisations, particularly the IRA, which


perpetrate the same type of offence within the remit of clause 12, remembering that clause 12 is not creating any new offences, but is taking powers of arrest and detention. If we are saying that those powers should be widened to include international terrorists in certain circumstances—my right hon. Friend the the Government have supported that suggestion by Lord Jellicoe—it is an anomaly that we are not extending these powers of arrest and detention to domestic-style organisations.

Mr. Ashby: Will my hon. Friend accept that the members of the organisations about which the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms Short) spoke have been prosecuted on two separate occasions and are serving terms in prison, which is a demonstration of how such things can be dealt with effectively by the courts?

Mr. Proctor: I agree, and I am questioning, not the power of the courts, but the power of the police to bring these people before the courts. I am grateful for my hon. Friend's intervention, which has helped me to make clear the distinction between the two.
My reservations on the amendment concern the extent to which it relates to international terrorism. It is my view that, just as terrorist organisations in Northern Ireland and Wales have their links and are related, so, too, are international terrorist organisations linked and related. I believe, for example, that the IRA has links with the PLO. My right hon. Friend thinks it important to cover links between the IRA and Welsh and Scottish domestic terrorism, but it should also be remembered that international terrorist organisations such as the PLO have links with the IRA. Democracies can no longer remain isolated in their activities to counter international terrorists.
In paragraph 78 of his report Lord Jellicoe said:
Prompt, firm and effective action by the police and other agencies has already helped to demonstrate that the United Kingdom is not a haven in which international terrorists can operate with impunity. My recommendation here would, if implemented, help to re-inforce that message.
He used the phrase "a haven", and just before Christmas, President Reagan, in a speech on terrorism on 22 December, said:
For terrorists to be curbed, civilian countries must begin a new effort to work together, to share intelligence, to improve our training and security, and our forces to deny havens or legal protection for terrorist groups".

Mr. Flannery: I have listened with great interest to the hon. Gentleman, both in Committee and now. He has given the opinion of President Reagan. The CIA, which to some extent comes under the authority of President Reagan, has made about 200 attempts on the life of Fidel Castro during various presidencies. Does the hon. Gentleman regard the CIA and, implicitly, President Reagan—because he commands that organisation—as terrorists? Will he also take account of the fact that Yasser Arafat, the leader of the PLO despite all its difficulties, is accepted by the vast majority of members of the United Nations? Indeed, when he spoke there, he received a standing ovation.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: When was that?

Mr. Flannery: I am appalled at the ignorance of hon. Members who do not know—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We are straying wide of the amendment.

Mr. Proctor: I do not know whether your stricture applies to me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but perhaps I might be allowed to reply briefly. I have no information about or direct knowledge of the CIA. However, if Yasser Arafat received a standing ovation at the United Nations, that says more about the United Nations and the sort of representatives prepared to support the PLO's terrorist links than it does about Yasser Arafat.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Down, South seemed to suggest that this was not the appropriate legislation to deal with the growing phenomenon of international terrorism towards the democracies. If so, I agree.
I supported the Bill on Second Reading with great enthusiasm because it started to begin to deal with the problem of international terrorism, but I am now beginning to think that it was an error to mix terrorism of an internal and domestic nature with terrorism operating in different countries for different reasons, with each organisation having links with the other.
Perhaps my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary will consider whether we need to do more, in negotiations with our allies and Western countries, to see what can be done to confront international terrorism.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Down, South spoke of the difficulties of definition. That problem also beset the Committee. A number of international conventions on terrorism exist, and perhaps they could be used as the basis of United Kingdom legislation to combat international terrorism. For example, the police should be given powers, if they do not already have them, to deal with conventions such as the convention for the suppression of unlawful seizure of aircraft, which was signed at the Hague on 16 December 1970, and the convention for the suppression of unlawful acts against the safety of civil aviation, which was signed at Montreal on 23 September 1971. Other conventions deal with attacks against the life, physical integrity or liberty of an internationally protected person, including diplomats
Some imagination may be required in our efforts to tackle international terrorism. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Down, South has provided another opportunity to debate clause 12, I should be grateful if the Home Secretary's views would go wider than the direct issues raised by the amendments.

Mr. Chris Smith: I rise briefly to press the Home Secretary on the major substance of the applicability of the clause and the amendments to organisations which, while committing no acts of violence or no offences against persons within Britain or the United Kingdom, could none the less he regarded as organisations involved in terrorism elsewhere in the world. I have a major interest in this matter, as 15 or 20 organisations which might conceivably be affected by the clause are based in my constituency.
There are major reasons why those organisations have cause to fear the implications of the clause as it stands, and I press the Home Secretary to make crystal clear the Government's view—and, therefore, by implication, the view that Parliament will adopt—of which organisations will be affected by clause 12, particularly subsection (2)(b).
Two difficulties were revealed by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell). The first is the difficulty of defining terrorism in an international context. Earlier exchanges revealed a difference of view about the


role of the CIA and whether that was a terrorist organisation. It has clearly been involved in violent acts against legitimate Governments. Would that be covered by the definition of terrorism?

Ms. Harman: Is not President Reagan directly involved in supporting and instigating acts of terrorism in central America, particularly Nicaragua? Therefore, if he came here after the Bill was enacted in its present form, would he not be in danger of falling foul of this law? Even though the Government might choose not to use their discretion to call him to book, could that not happen under the law? It shows that this is a highly contentious political point.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is wide of the amendment.

Mr. Smith: At the risk of incurring your wrath, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall agree with my hon. Friend, but I want to make a further point that may concern Conservative Members and their supporters somewhat more. Would the Free French during the second world war, for example, have counted as a terrorist organisation? According to the Bill, clearly it would. We must ask the Home Secretary to clarify the precise meaning of the clause and the amendments that we are debating. Therefore, the first problem involves the precise definition of international terrorism.
The second difficulty concerns the ambiguity of clause 12(2)(b) and whether its provisions are restricted to Northern Ireland or are more widely spread. The clause is extremely ambiguous. I hope that the Home Secretary will make the Government's view clear.

Ms. Clare Short: The problem that many Conservative Members have in understanding the argument is that they think they can take the law and act against groups that they do not like. Of course, the Government would not act against President Reagan under the clause, but, if we applied the law consistently, they should act against him. That shows what a ludicrous power it is. Similarly, General de Gaulle would have been guilty, according to this provision.

Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark (Birminghan, Selly Oak): Nonsense.

Ms. Short: The hon. Gentleman has not read the details of the Bill if he says "Nonsense". Surely, the answer is that we should take powers to deal not with terrorism, but with violence and the illegal actions of anyone at any time. Then we should not have all the problems of definition. We could apply the law consistently and live under the rule of law. We are presented with a fundamental flaw in the whole concept of the Bill.

Mr. Smith: I thank my hon. Friend, but perhaps I can add something that may give Conservative Members pause for thought. The contributions of Conservative Members, the interventions from the Opposition Benches, and the admirable speech of the right hon. Member for Down, South in moving the amendment reveal that there is a major difficulty in this part of the Bill—and in this clause in particular — involving the definition of

terrorism and what constitutes terrorism, as defined in the clause. Wide powers are given to the police, so the Government should make very clear what counts as terrorism under the clause.
I am sure that the Home Secretary did not intend that groups which are involved in what we would all agree were liberation struggles against oppression elsewhere in the world should, under this legislation, be labelled as terrorist organisations and therefore should be included. If that is so, I hope that he will make it very clear when he replies to the debate. I hope that he will specify exactly how the clause will apply internationally, as opposed to Northern Ireland.

Mr. Ashby: This clause has given me great cause for concern. The amendment moved by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) to clause 12(1)(b) is in conflict with clause 12(2)(b). So there will be some difficulty in accepting that amendment.
However, the clause contains something that is quite extraordinary in our law. It allows arrest, without charging. It allows a constable to arrest someone who he thinks
has been concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism to which this Part of this Act applies",
but where it allows for arrest for acts of terrorism for offences outside the United Kingdom, there is no way in which anyone can be charged with that offence.
For example, if someone from Afghanistan is over here, planning an act of what could be called terrorism in Afghanistan, planning to shoot down a Russian helicopter, that person can be arrested because the act could be considered an act of terrorism. However, he cannot be charged in this country, because the offence is not committed in this country. Nor can the offence be brought before the courts of this country. The only offences that can be brought before the courts in this country are acts of murder of British subjects abroad or acts of piracy against a British ship on the high seas. So there are grave limitations in the offences that can be brought before courts in this country. Acts such as the one I have described could not be brought before our courts, although it is clear from the clause that such a person can be charged.

Mr. Proctor: If my hon. Friend looks at the legislation he will find that a person can be charged in this country with the murder of anyone abroad. He does not have to be British.

Mr. Ashby: Yes, but only murder.

Mr. Proctor: He does not have to be British.

Mr. Ashby: No. However, there are those limitations, and any act that could be termed an act of terrorism abroad could not be charged in this country. So the clause contains a very unusual power, and I wonder whether it was always intended that courts should have this power. Someone can be arrested, perhaps interrogated and held up to five days, but then that person must either be allowed to go or be deported. That would be the only effect of the clause. I am not sure that hon. Members appreciate those limitations.
My hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mr. Proctor) would like this clause to be extended to domestic terrorism. I disagree. There is no doubt that domestic terrorism is amply covered by the substantive offences in


this country of criminal damage, murder, injury to persons, wounding and any one of a catalogue of substantive offences. We do not need more offences to be created. They are all there and available to the courts. I can find nothing in the clause that gives the police any more power of investigation, so I see no way in which this legislation could assist in offences that are described as offences of domestic terrorism.

Mr. Proctor: Clause 12 does not create any extra offences.

Mr. Ashby: Clause 12 does not create any more offences, but it provides powers of arrest for offences within the Bill, and my hon. Friend was trying to argue that the offences should be extended to domestic terrorism. It would be quite wrong so to extend them. There is ample opportunity to deal with wrongdoers in existing legislation.
The effect of the clause is disturbing and arbitrary. It allows for a constable to arrest, and within the definition of terrorism, which is revolt, one can conceive of a head of state—I do not want specifically to mention the President of the United States or the president of any other state—or someone of some importance coming to this country and being arrested by a police constable. There is no provision for reference to the Director of Public Prosecutions, for example, before such an arrest is put into effect. The clause provides an arbitrary power of arrest for offences which are the concern of countries abroad and not our concern.
Why do we spend so much time in Committee and on the Floor of the House discussing an issue which is not our concern? We have sufficient problems within our own boundaries and I am surprised that we want to concern ourselves with problems abroad.

Mr. Flannery: The fears of the hon. Member for Leicestershire, North-West (Mr. Ashby) are commendable but the answer to his question—he said that he did not understand why we were having this discussion—is that the debate is taking place because the relevant provisions are in the Bill. That is why the discussion is taking place. We did not put the provisions in the Bill, and we want to be rid of the Bill altogether. The entire Bill is a nuisance and it is causing far more trouble than it can possibly be worth. It is now outdated, if it was ever in date.
We have all commended Lord Jellicoe's report, but in this instance he has slipped up badly. At page 27, paragraph 76 of his great report, Lord Jellicoe states:
I discussed in Part I the increasing threat in Great Britain from terrorism totally unconnected with Northern Ireland.
It is in the mind of everyone that the prevention of terrorism legislation is connected with Northern Ireland and with the United Kingdom as it is connected with Northern Ireland. There is a tendency sometimes for people to think that Northern Ireland is not connected with the United Kingdom, but I am sure that it is in the mind of everyone that the entire Act is connected with Northern Ireland in some way. However, it was bound to be broadened. In amendment No. 38, we sought to remove one of the most dangerous clauses but, unfortunately, the amendment was not selected. However, as a result of the representations of my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley), we now have the right to discuss that amendment.
8.45 pm
It was the actions of some of the middle eastern terrorists in London that made Lord Jellicoe have what many of us considered to be unfound fears. He stated in his report:
Many fear that London, in particular, could become a battle ground for warring Middle East terrorist factions; my own view is that we may be facing this threat for many years to come. To date, most of the victims of such outrages have been foreign nationals resident in Great Britain, rather than United Kingdom citizens. There is, however, no good reason to believe that this state of affairs will continue".
Lord Jellicoe continued:
My concluson, in relation to international terrorism, is that these powers should be available.
They are available, as has been pointed out by the hon. Member for Leicestershire. North-West and my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short). Therefore, there is no need for the extension of those powers in the Bill. Lord Jellicoe has introduced a factor that has resulted in the Government extending the powers by placing them in the Bill. That in turn resulted in the longest and most intense discussion in Committee.
We were pressurised democratically and honourably by many organisations which fear for their nationals in this country. My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) referred to the Free French as an example. There are many people in Britain who come from countries where there is no democracy. South Africa is one example. Regimes exist which terrorise the populations that are under them and no democracy exists within them. There are valiant people who have no democratic outlet and who see their people being dragged into gaols throughout the country, as in South Africa, and tortured. They see surrounding countries being attacked, and these noble people fight. They are then accused of being terrorists. At some stage they have come to our country, where they have behaved themselves according to our laws.

Mr. Proctor: rose—

Mr. Flannery: No, I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman. He has had a fair crack of the whip and it is time for one or two Labour Members to explain their beliefs.
These so-called terrorists. who come from countries which are held down by tyrannical and undemocratic regimes, are almost always the future statesmen and leaders of their people. They have come to our country from time immemorial. They are distinguished human beings who have struggled valiantly and at great risk to their own lives.

Mr. Proctor: They are murderers.

Mr. Flannery: The clause is dangerous because it will have an impact on these people. If they stay in our country and observe its laws, we believe that they should have the right to do what they do.

Mr. Proctor: They are killers.

Mr. Flannery: The real terrorists, who will be helped by the Bill, are the tyrants and regimes which suppress democracy. That is why we have received so many documents from those who are fearful of the consequences.
What are the implications? Many of these so-called terrorists are accepted by the United Nations, for which the hon. Member for Billericay (Mr. Proctor) and many of his


colleagues have such contempt, and the comity of nations throughout the world, but they could be prevented from coming to our country by the Bill. That is one of the factors that has motivated us to struggle so intensively.
I shall mention some of the valiant people who have come to our country in the fairly recent past. Robert Mugabe was here legitimately and he met our leading people. Some of us met him previously when he was struggling for his people against the regime of Ian Smith.

Mr. Proctor: He is a killer too.

Ms. Harman: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Flannery: I shall deal with the hon. Member for Billericay as best I can. We all know his background and what he supports. Our Queen recently visited the monument to Jomo Kenyatta, who died some time ago, when she visited his country. He lived peaceably in Britain for many years.
He became the leader of his country, but before that he fought in and led a resistance movement. Our press was full of it and called him every name under the sun. He was known as "Burning Spear Kenyatta". Now, members of the Government and our Sovereign have been to that country and to the memorial to Kenyatta. He was the hero and leader of his people.
In Mozambique, Samora Machel led his people and was called a terrorist. He would not be accepted here. Arafat would not be accepted here either. Many people could be cited. For example, Mr. Begin was a terrorist and his group was involved in the bombing of the King David hotel. People like the present Prime Minister of Israel, Mr. Shamir, are accepted throughout the world, yet were terrorists in their time. They fought against regimes that appalled them and used the methods of terrorism.
In Committee, I mentioned that I was in India and that we had to guard people such as Nehru and Ghandi. Of course they were not terrorists, but wherever they went they were surrounded by thousands of people. Terrorism is endemic in such situations. In the same way, Jesus Christ was once surrounded by thousands of people and the regime of the time dealt with him in exactly the same way. Such serious points must be taken into account.
Lord Jellicoe cannot produce any evidence for his recommendation. He has ample powers already. There is a serious lapse in this terrible Bill. However, it is typical of it, and that is why we must struggle against these provisions in particular. They will have an awful effect on innocent people, just as the whole Bill will.

Mr. Soley: In Committee, the Opposition tried to amend the clause, because we recognised that it was dangerous and basically undesirable. We saw that it would lead to all sorts of danger to groups that are legitimately in this country. To be fair, the Government and the Home Secretary recognise that. There was an exchange of letters between various organisations and the Foreign Secretary, and an Opposition spokesman was also involved. Thus, there was considerable concern and support for the idea of some change.
However, at the end of the day the Government were unable to find a form of words with which they felt happy. To deal with that problem, we tabled an amendment, which has not been selected, for the understandable

reasons that were dealt with earlier, but which would have restricted the Act of terrorism connected with Northern Ireland. Instead, we are debating other amendments related to that. I shall direct my remarks primarily to the problem that has arisen because of the way in which the clause has been drafted.
The clause has given rise to great anxiety both at home and abroad to those groups fighting for the liberation of their countries and restoration of democracy precisely because there is no universally acceptable definition of political terror. Ultimately, people make political judgments as to whether it is right to use force in certain circumstances and in particular political systems. That is the problem that we all face.
The Government tried to find a form of words that would reassure some of the groups in exile. I think particularly of the groups operating in south west Africa, Iran, Chile and so on. We recognise that where a country has no democracy, or has lost it, people have a right to try to gain or restore it. Indeed, the Government also accept that. Some Conservative Members have been quick to heckle my hon. Friends. However, I can do no better than to quote someone whom I would not normally quote in support of my argument. I refer to the Prime Minister, whom I quoted in Committee. I said:
The Prime Minister has expressed her understanding of a decision of the liberation movements to resort to violence. She wrote in September 1983: 'The exclusion of blacks from the political process has inevitably led to increasing dissatisfaction. Although not to be condoned, this has been a powerful factor in impelling black political leaders to seek by violence what is denied them by the laws under which they live'."— [Official Report, Standing Committee, 29 November 1983; c. 271.]
Of course, we all recognise that members of this and previous Governments have met and dealt with a variety of such groups and individuals, and it is important that they should continue to have the power to do so.
The hon. Member for Leicestershire, North-West (Mr. Ashby) mentioned Afghanistan. In a way, that is a good example, not because it necessarily supports my case, but because it underlines the difficulty of identifying what we mean by political terror. In Committee, I put the following question to the hon. Member for Billericay (Mr. Proctor), and he could not deal with it. I asked him about the position of Afghan groups operating from Pakistan and receiving support from Britain. I pointed out to him that in the House the Secretary of State for Defence had said that he was not prepared to state that he was not giving direct military support to the Afghan forces fighting in Afghanistan.
The problem is that any direct military support that is being given is being given to fight the Soviet Union. I profoundly disagree with the Soviet Union's occupation of Afghanistan. However, it is not just a matter of arresting the President of the United States under this provision. If it were taken to its logical conclusion, we would end up arresting the Secretary of State for Defence. Nothing could be more absurd or illogical than that. Ultimately, one has to decide which side to support. That difficulty must be recognised honourably. Indeed, the Home Secretary has recognised that in a way, but some Conservative Back Benchers have not.

Mr. Proctor: If the hon. Gentleman would care to look at column 315 of the Official Report of our Committee proceedings for 1 December 1983, he would see my response to the point about Afghanistan. However, I shall


not weary the House with that now. By being selective, the hon. Gentleman has misled the House about the views of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. I have quoted her views before, and shall repeat what she said on 21 July to the British Jewish community. She said:
The terrorists of our own age talk in military terms. But their deeds are those of common criminals. Many specialise in the safe, long-distance attack: the letter bomb, the remote control device, the bullet from a secret haven. … Gangs of assassins cannot be dignified with the word 'armies'. Terrorists are not 'freedom fighters' … For modern terrorism is an international disease. Terrorists are trained in one country to bomb and murder in another. They rely on international trafficking in arms. The answer to this assault across the frontiers is closer and closer cooperation between governments—the sharing among likeminded countries of information, plans and techniques—and to that the British Government is strongly committed."—[Official Report, Standing Committee, 29 November 1983; c. 280.]
I wish that the hon. Gentleman would quote the Prime Minister fully and correctly when it comes to terrorism.

Mr. Soley: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, because he has underlined the difficulty. He has not claimed that the Prime Minister did not say that. Indeed, we all know that she said it. The Prime Minister has the same problem as the Home Secretary, the hon. Gentleman and me. On each issue one has to decide. On one occasion the right hon. Lady chose to call such people terrorists and to say that they were unacceptable, and on another she said that they were acceptable. That is precisely what she said.
The hon. Gentleman is not denying that the quotation I read was true. It is a direct quote from the Prime Minister. I am not trying to say that she is wicked. The problem is that if one has to make a decision on each case, one gets into great trouble. Therefore, in trying to legislate across the board, one ends up taking out friends as well as enemies.
9 pm
The Government have attempted to get round the problem by saying that they will issue a circular to the relevant port and police authorities stating that the power of arrest or detention should not be used. That is suggested as an alternative.
We all recognise that Lord Jellicoe—and just about everybody else—has said that legislation by circular is undesirable and bad in its own right. If the appropriate wording cannot be found, the best course is to recognise the fundamental truth, which underneath we all know, that the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1976 is on the statute book for one reason and one reason only—a persistent threat of paramilitary activity related to the situation in Northern Ireland which has not been resolved. Nobody has yet argued, nor can I consider such an argument, that the Bill should be enacted but for terrorism connected with Northern Ireland. No one could argue, therefore, that clause 12 should be enacted. It should not be there, and we all know it.
I return to Lord Jellicoe's review, and I ask the indulgence of the House to re-quote what has already been quoted, not just for the sake of repetition, but because there are several points that I consider to be particularly important. In paragraph 76 he says:
I discussed … the increasing threat in Great Britain from terrorism totally unconnected with Northern Ireland.
He continues:
Many fear that London, in particular, could become a battleground for warring Middle East terrorist factions; my own view is that we may be facing this threat for many years to come.

To date, most of the victims of such outrages have been foreign nationals resident in Great Britain, rather than United Kingdom citizens.
That is a dangerous approach to the problem. First, Lord Jellicoe is suggesting doing something that none of us accept ought to be done—legislating for something that could happen. The essential word in that quotation is "could", and he uses it specifically: he fears that it might happen. We are now doing what we should never do. We are saying that we have identified the problem — terrorism related to Northern Ireland—and it might now come from somewhere else too, the middle east, so let us legislate for that. It might come from central America, south east Asia, Africa, north America—anywhere. Do we legislate for all that? Of course not. It is a dangerous approach. That is what I mean by referring so often to an erosion of civil liberties. Each action is justified as some necessary way of defending democracy as a way of life. It is then extended to cover a possible circumstance that might be bad. In that way, we erode the civil rights that we should be defending.

Mr. Beaumont-Dark: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that, if one were talking in a kind of surrealistic world, one might be right? However, the House is considering a responsible police force. We are talking not about someone shoplifting, but about the police reasonably thinking that someone is a terrorist or is involved in terrorism. Such people can be detained for only 48 hours without the involvement of the Home Secretary which, in all conscience, regarding terrorism and all its ramifications, is not a long time. Any period exceeding 48 hours needs the sanction of the Home Secretary, and the total period cannot exceed five days. The House is talking not about somebody being shut up in a Chilean or East German prison, but about detention for five days at most. Why is that an erosion of liberty? Is it not more important to protect life than to protect terrorists?

Mr. Soley: The hon. Gentleman's argument to some extent supports my contention in that the police are not asking for this power. I shall say more about that later. The police feel that they do not need this power. If, 15 years ago, I had said to the hon. Gentleman that in Britain in 1984 there would be the power to order internal exile, to detain people without arrest or charge and without their seeing a lawyer for up to seven days, with daily searches in shops, stores, and so on, he would have said, "No, never. That is some authoritarian state, not Britain." What I mean by the erosion of civil rights is that the actions of each and every individual situation look reasonable in itself, just as the Prevention of Terrorism Act looked reasonable after the 1974 pub bombings and just as the Emergency Provisions Act looked reasonable in the light of the Northern Ireland situation.
All of those things look reasonable. The problem is that with that erosion of civil rights we lose the liberties that have been built up. Democracies are rarely lost overnight in a grand coup. What tends to happen is that the civil liberties that have become established are eroded over a period of time as a result of succeeding crises. Then there is a particularly big crisis, perhaps related to the economy or to unemployment, corruption, inflation and so on—or it may be an event related to war—and one suddenly finds that all the defences that were there to protect the civil liberties of the citizen are gone.
The hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark) recently complained bitterly about the police having power to stop and breathalyse drivers. I have made the point once tonight—I have also made it on the radio today — that we could save a couple of hundred lives a year if in every pub in the country there were police officers to stop people from drinking and driving. Should we do that? If we tried, hon. Members say, "No, the cost in civil liberties is too dangerous and at the end of the day that could cost more lives."

Mr. Beaumont-Dark: I concede the hon. Gentleman's point that had we been told a few years ago that we should be discussing a Bill such as this many of us would have been horrified. Will he concede that he would have been equally amazed to be told that somebody who was a well-known supporter of the murders that go on in Northern Ireland could be elected to this House? Does he agree that, if people who support the murder of British subjects are elected to this House, that in itself is such an extreme situation that the Government of the day must take powers that they would not wish to take but for the fact that some people are not loyal enough, or even willing, to protect the lives of those whom they have been elected to protect?

Mr. Soley: I am not sure how much research I should have to do, but I suspect that it would not be much, to show that a number of Members of Parliament, particularly in the last century, were involved in violence, especially in Ireland. I cannot name one off the top of my head, but I am sure that there have been a number. Indeed, if the hon. Gentleman thinks back to the last century, and perhaps to the early part of this, many such examples will come to mind. I urge him, therefore, to take a longer view of the matter. At present he is taking a short view, which is not good in present circumstances.
I come to the question of evidence, which also has a bearing on the point made by the hon. Member for Selly Oak. The onus is on the Government to prove that these extra powers are necessary. They have not done that. Where is the evidence? Lord Whitelaw, when Home Secretary, said that there had been no increase in "middle east terror" in the Metropolitan police area during the past 10 years, and he took the view that extra powers were not needed.
There is no evidence from any of the police forces that they want this legislation or that they believe that the threat in their areas has grown. The Police Federation takes a different view, but there is no evidence from the chiefs of police, who are responsible for collecting the statistics and analysing them, that such a problem exists in their areas. There is no evidence from the Government that there has been an increase in the threat.
It is clear to me that the present laws are sufficient. I cannot add to what the hon. Member for Leicestershire, North-West said on this issue. His analysis was accurate. There is no evidence to show that the present laws are not sufficient to deal with the problem.
I remind the House that the problem of political violence is not new. We say that it has been particularly severe in the last 10 to 15 years, and it has been, but it has been severe at a number of times in our history, particularly during the last 100 or more years. If one took to its logical conclusion the threat of excluding various refugees who fled to this country from less fortunate

places, one would have to look back to the reputation of this country in the 19th century, and one would see that it was far less liberal than it is today. Indeed, for a Government who claim to have Victorian values, I must tell them that what stood out about the Victorians was their willingness to keep the door open to people such as Garibaldi, to some of the Russian emigrés and to a host of others who were not allowed to function in their own countries. Karl Marx and Lenin are other examples. The Home Secretary has clearly said that he does not want to stop such people.
I do not want to continue my speech much longer—I have been led down some diverse paths—but I must say something about the dangers of legislating by circular. Circulars issued by a Department are not laws and carry no weight in a court of law. Some time ago a Labour Government introduced community service orders as an alternative to imprisonment, but no provision was made for that in legislation. The recommendation that they should be an alternative to prison was issued in a circular sent to all the courts in the land. I remember a magistrate saying to me, "I do not mind what is in the circular— the Government can put what they like in a circular— but I see community service as a sentence in its own right, not as an alternative to prison, and I shall use it as I like." I take my hat off to that magistrate. He is right. That is an example of the danger of trying to legislate by circular.
The second danger is that the Home Secretary of the day can change circulars without difficulty. A recent example is the way that the present Home Secretary changed the parole instructions. That is a classic example of a sudden and dramatic switch in policy implemented through advice, not the law.
Circulars are incredibly dangerous because they are open to misinterpretation. We ask police officers, customs officers and immigration officers to pick up a circular, read it, and keep its contents in their heads. When they are on duty at a port or anywhere else they are expected to say, "Oh, yes, I think the circular applies to this person." They are expected to operate it fairly on that basis. We put an unreasonable burden on them by asking that of them. We ask them to do something that we would find difficult to do.
This is a classic case of the erosion of our democracy. The real threat is in Northern Ireland, but the law is being extended to cover supposed threats. There is no evidence that supposed threats cannot be dealt with within existing law or that they have become worse in recent years.
We must recognise that the Bill came about not because of terror in Northern Ireland, but because the problem spilt over into Great Britain. When the bombs started going off here, we suddenly became worried. If we had felt the same anxiety every time someone was killed, knee-capped or bombed in Northern Ireland, perhaps we would have done more about the problems in Northern Ireland earlier.
The Bill is about Northern Ireland and Great Britain, not about the rest of the world. We would not have the problem over clause 12 if the Northern Ireland problem did not exist. My advice to the Government is to drop the provision entirely. It is unacceptable, unnecessary and has all sorts of dangerous connotations.

Mr. Brittan: This debate began some time ago when the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) moved the amendment. It is fair to say that the amendments under discussion are a peg on which to hang


a debate on the proper extent of the operation of clause 12. I do not criticise the right hon. Gentleman for using the amendment in that way, and we are grateful to the Chair for allowing us to conduct the debate on that basis.
The House should know that the amendments would not achieve any of the objectives sought by any right hon. or hon. Member, including the right hon. Member for Down, South. I am content to leave it at that and not go into detail about why the amendments would not secure any of the objectives that have been asked for. If we are approaching a vote, it is right that the House should bear in mind that the amendments do not provide an apt opportunity for an expression of view on any of the matters that we have been debating.
9.15 pm
We should remind ourselves of the extent of the provision that we are considering. It enables a constable to arrest a person whom he has reasonable grounds for suspecting to be guilty of an offence under earlier provisions or a person who is or has been concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism to which this part of the Bill applies. It is clear that the power of the constable is confined to detaining that person for no more than 48 hours after his arrest. Any further detention for a maximum period of a further five days is dependent, as my hon. Friend has pointed out, on a decision of the Home Secretary.
I take the liberty of repeating those facts on the face of the Bill because they are supremely relevant to whether particular offences of a substantive kind exist and are adequate to deal with terrorism. No one has suggested for one moment that the clause provides for crimes with which people can be charged. What the clause provides is a tool by the use of which it might be possible to ascertain whether somebody has been guilty of an offence and what conduct he has been guilty of. Therefore, I do not think that it will do to say that the number of substantive offences is adequate to deal with the mischief concerned, because the question is not whether the offences exist, but whether it is necessary to have this tool to find out whether certain people have committed offences.
Of course, one accepts, as I said many times during the deliberations in Committee, as I said on Second Reading and as I welcome the opportunity of repeating now, that the power is exceptional and inimical to the tradition of our civil liberties. It is a power which no Government would have introduced if they had not regarded it as absolutely necessary to do so. The least that I can say about the actions in 1974 of the Labour Government who first introduced the legislation is that, as my hon. Friend the Minister of State has indicated, it is extremely difficult to see what there is in today's circumstances which leads the Labour party to believe for the first time, after the legislation has been on the statute book for nine years, that the country is so secure and that the threat of Northern Irish terrorism has so diminished that the powers it once believed appropriate are no longer so. The ghastly irony is that between the time when these matters were debated in Committee and today, when we are debating them on the Floor of the House, the Harrods outrage should have occurred. All that will be taken into account.
The debate is about where and to what extent the powers should be exercised. First, I shall deal with the suggestion that if there is to be an extension of the powers other than—

Mr. Soley: The Home Secretary has made a number of allegations some of which we have dealt with before. I cannot let the one about Harrods go. He was not in the House when I challenged the Minister of State to say whether the legislation had been of any use in tracking down the people who committed that deed. Would the legislation have been of any use in preventing it? There is no evidence that it would. I challenge the Home Secretary now to say that there is such evidence.

Mr. Brittan: The inquiry into the Harrods matter is incomplete, but the hon. Gentleman's question is utterly irrelevant in any case. If he will bear with me, I will explain why. It is precisely events such as the Harrods outrage, which was very much on all fours with the pub bombings which originally led to the introduction of the legislation, which provide the justification for legislation of this kind.

Mr. D. E. Thomas: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

Mr. Brittan: No, I shall not give way for a moment. It is not appropriate to go into whether the legislation has assisted the police in relation to the Harrods outrage at the present stage of inquiries. Nevertheless, powers of this kind were regarded by the Labour Government as justified in 1974 as a result of outrages of exactly the same type. It thus does not lie in the mouths of Labour Members to say that that does not matter and that the powers are now unnecessary and outmoded and should be wiped from the statute book.

Ms. Harman: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Brittan: When the Labour Government were in power, events of precisely this kind caused the legislation to be put on the statute book.

Ms. Harman: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Brittan: The call to order is as appropriate to me as to the Opposition, Mr. Speaker, as in straying into these matters I have gone beyond the important debate with which I should be dealing.
The clause changes the basis on which the powers could be operated. I must make it clear that there was nothing in the original legislation to confine the exercise of these powers to Northern Irish terrorism. The powers were at large, but when I was Minister of State I made it clear, as quoted in paragraph 75 of the Jellicoe report, that, although the powers were not specifically restricted to terrorism connected with Northern Irish affairs, their use would in practice be limited to such affairs. I said in a written answer:
Arrest is a matter for the chief officer of the force concerned, but an extension of detention under these provisions is granted only where a connection with terrorism related to Northern Irish affairs is established or suspected. — [Official Report, 5 November 1980; Vol. 991, c. 571.]
That was the position at that time.
The Bill makes it clear that it is possible for the power to be used in relation to terrorism unrelated to Northern Irish affairs, but, as the right hon. Member for Down, South pointed out, it is limited to terrorism which has no connection with political activity related to the affairs of the United Kingdom other than Northern Ireland. My hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mr. Proctor) asked why


the power should not be extended to Scottish and Welsh nationalists and those concerned with United Kingdom nationalist causes.

Mr. D. E. Thomas: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Brittan: Perhaps I may deal with this point.

Mr. Thomas: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way on that point?

Mr. Brittan: No, I shall not give way for a moment. I shall give way when I have explained the Government's view.
The Government take the view that precisely because this is a power of great gravity it would not be appropriate to extend it any further than is necessary. Although what has occurred in the name of Scottish and Welsh nationalism has on occasion been of a violent nature and certainly unlawful, the gravity of the matter has not so far been sufficient to justify the use of these powers in that context, although, as I said in Committee, if the position became worse the Government would not hesitate to extend their use in the manner suggested.
If that is the position, what is the justification for extending the power to acts of terrorism unrelated to the United Kingdom? The explanation, to which reference has repeatedly been made, is found in the conclusion reached by Lord Jellicoe in his review, and I shall not repeat the passage. His view was that, judging from recent British history, the facts were such that there was justification for extending the powers to acts of terrorism which were not concerned with Northern Ireland alone. It is not correct to say, as the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) attempted to say, that that would involve legislating for future anxieties. Every hon. Member will recall the Prince's Gate siege in May 1980 and the shooting of the Israeli ambassador in June 1982. To say that these are idle fears which do not call for legislation seems to be unrealistic.
Lord Jellicoe, after a careful review, said:
I recommend … that the power of arrest in section 12(1) (b) … should be available for use against suspected international terrorists of any group, cause or nationality.
The Government have accepted that and we are implementing other recommendations in the report.

Mr. D. E. Thomas: I should like to give the Home Secretary the opportunity to establish clearly in Hansard what he is talking about when he refers to Welsh nationalism. Welsh nationalism is a democratic, cultural and political movement which has massive support in parts of Wales — 10 per cent. of the popular vote — and has expressed itself traditionally through non-violent democratic means. I should not like to see the Home Secretary and the Government following the practice of some sections of the media—if I catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I might return to this subject on Third Reading, which would be a more appropriate time to discuss it—in using Welsh nationalism as a blanket term in attempting to link democratic political expression with the use of violence.

Mr. Brittan: I was extremely careful, in the words that I chose, not to fall into the trap which the hon. Gentleman rightly identifies, but I welcome the chance of spelling my point out even more clearly and wholly endorsing what he

has said. I believe that I referred to those acting in the name of Welsh nationalism. I accept that the movement of which the hon. Gentleman is a member is different, but many reputable and respectable movements find that there are others which purport to share the same aspirations but use methods which would not be condoned by the reputable movements. I hope that I have assisted the hon. Gentleman in providing the clarification that he seeks, and I am glad to have the opportunity of making that point.
I have given the essential reason for the extension of the power in those directions, but concern has understandably been expressed in Committee and on the Floor of the House about the position of foreign nationals who, although they are lawfully in this country, may have been involved in violent struggles for reasons which they and some people in this country might regard as legitimate in their home country. The example that has been most to the fore is that of the South African nationalist movements. It is said that those people would be liable to arrest on the ground that there was reason to suspect them of involvement in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of violence for a political end. The case of such people has been put forcefully.
In response to that concern, which I hoped I showed I fully understood when the matter was debated in Committee, the Committee was given an assurance that guidance on the use of the powers would be issued to the police by means of a circular to chief officers. The terms of that circular have not been put before the House. My hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State told the Committee that chief officers would be advised that powers in respect of international terrorism should be used only where there was some prospect that a charge would be laid before a United Kingdom court or that the person would be deported under the Immigration Act 1971.
9.30 pm
Having given that assurance — the Government recognise the limitations of assurances given in circulars —my hon. and learned Friend said that we would seek to draft an amendment to give effect to the assurance, although he fairly warned the Committee that that might not prove possible. I regret that, despite considerable efforts, it has proved impossible to draft an amendment which would embody the assurances which we agreed to give in the circular without greatly weakening the thrust of the clause against international terrorism.
I make no secret of the fact that the clause is intended to fight international terrorism, and not only in respect of international terrorists who commit acts of violence in the United Kingdom. I cannot believe that the House would wish that the powers should not be available to deal with an international terrorist group which took violent, murderous action against a friendly country or blew up buildings in, say, Paris or Bonn. Are we saying that we would not want powers to deal with such circumstances?

Mr. Flannery: We already have them.

Mr. Brittan: The hon. Gentleman is wrong. We may or may not have powers to extradite or to charge, but we certainly do not have the power in clause 12. Otherwise, there would be no basis for objecting to its inclusion in the Bill.

Ms. Harman: Will the Home Secretary give us an example of where the lack of that power has caused


problems in the circumstances that he has described? Or are we concerned only with what he imagines might happen in the future?

Mr. Brittan: As those powers were absent in the past, it is impossible to answer such a question. However, I have given ample examples of terrorism in this country and the hon. Lady knows that people involved in hijackings, blowing up property and killing people in other parts of the world have come to rest in this country, either in transit or permanently. It is ridiculous to expect us to say, in the absence of such powers, who the powers might have enabled us to arrest and interrogate in London, Birmingham or Manchester and thereby prevent loss of life in Paris, Bonn or Rome.
We have been forced to conclude that the only way to protect the interests of the groups whose interests have legitimately been raised by hon. Members — without preventing us from having the necessary powers against international terrorism — is to proceed by circular, despite all the disadvantages of that procedure.
It would be possible to amend the clause to remove all the anxieties, but only by paying the price that I have mentioned. It is important that the United Kingdom should continue to take, and be seen to be taking, a firm stand against terrorism in all its manifestations. Successive Governments have strongly supported, advocated and pursued a policy of close co-operation with other countries to stamp out international terrorism. That is why we attach so much significance not only to the extension of the powers to international terrorism, but to the absence of a territorial restriction in clause 12(2)(b).
There are a number of precedents for measures related to terrorism to have extra-territorial aspects. A series of Acts have been passed in the past decade or so to enshrine in United Kingdom law the provisions of international conventions designed to deal with specific manifestations of terrorism by making them offences in the United Kingdom, wherever they occur in the world.
The Hijacking Act 1971 and the Protection of Aircraft Act 1973 provide that it is an offence under United Kingdom law for any person of any nationality anywhere in the world to hijack an aircraft or deliberately take measures which would result in the destruction of or damage to an aircraft, or otherwise endanger its safety. Is it unreasonable for us not only to have that on the statute book but to have a policing power which may assist in the detection and conviction of someone guilty of the substantive offence?
Similarly, the Internationally Protected Persons Act 1978 provides that it is an offence for any person, whether a United Kingdom citizen or not, to commit anywhere in the world any act against a Head of State or certain categories of diplomat which would constitute an offence if committed in the United Kingdom.
These measures and others like them protect us as much as they protect people overseas. If we want other friendly countries to give us the protection that we are prepared to give them, we cannot deny them the protection of this legislation as well. It would be quite wrong if, by restricting the application of clause 12 to acts of Northern Ireland terrorism or even to acts of international terrorism committed in this country, we lost the opportunity of showing that our concern with terrorism is not limited to those of its manifestations which take place on our soil or directly affect our own interests.
For that reason, even though the amendments would not have the effect that has been the subject of much of this debate, I ask the House to reject them on the basis that they would be inappropriate if they had the effect that they are intended to have.

Mr. Flannery: rose—

Mr. Bermingham: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Home Secretary has sat down.

Amendment negatived.

Amendment made: No. 36, in page 10, line 10, at end insert—

'(1A) The power of arrest conferred by subsection (1)(c) above is exercisable only—

(a) in Great Britain, if the exclusion order was made under section 4 above; and
(b) in Northern Ireland, if it was made under section 5 above'.—[Mr. Britton.]

Clause 14

SUPPLEMENTARY

Mr. Alex Carlile: I beg to move amendment No. 42, in page 13, line 13, leave out from 'Parliament' to end of line 30.
Clause 14 gives power to the Secretary of State to exercise his discretion to make an order to continue the operation of the legislation for a period, albeit temporarily, without first obtaining an affirmative resolution of this House.
We have paid a great deal of lip service today to the unfortunate nature of this type of legislation. We have all agreed that it is highly regrettable that it is necessary. We have all agreed that it involves serious interferences with civil rights. We have all agreed that risks of severe injustice are inherent in such legislation. We would all agree that one of the most important aspects of this Bill is its temporary nature—the fact that it requires to be affirmatively renewed every 12 months. Another of the most important features of the Bill is that that affirmative resolution has to be made not only by this House but by the other House as well.
Before we give the Home Secretary even a temporary power to exercise his discretion to continue this legislation without the affirmative resolution of the House, should we not stop and ask ourselves where that line of thought will lead us? I shall not indulge in the already hackneyed analogies with the attempts of George Orwell to predict what might happen in 1984, but the House should allow the exercise of executive discretion of this nature only in the most extreme circumstances. Therefore, we have to ask ourselves whether the circumstances postulated by the Bill are the most extreme circumstances, in which we would regard it as acceptable for such a powerful executive discretion to be exercised. The alliance has come to the conclusion that it is not appropriate in the Bill for such a discretion to be given to the Secretary of State. Although we doubt it, we hope that the Secretary of State will accept that there is no necessity for the 40-day provision to be included.
It is most important that only the resolution of the House should permit the Bill to endure beyond a year. Despite not having the advantage of being represented on the Standing Committee that considered the Bill, we have considered in detail whether there are any circumstances


in which it could be realistically said that the Secretary of State should be able to exercise his executive discretion. In all circumstances, it is open to him so to arrange the timescales that apply to the Bill that he would be able to come back to the House before the 12 months were up and obtain the affirmative resolution that is provided for. We bear very much in mind the strongly justified representations made by many bodies and individuals that the Bill in any event gives a great deal of excessive power of an executive nature—power that is not subject to the usual scrutiny of judicial reform or other similar judicial processes.
We are of the view that this amendment would in no way damage the efficacy of the Bill or the effectiveness of the powers that the Government seek. However, the amendment would go some way towards harmlessly and properly alleviating the concerns that have been expressed. We regard the amendments as a matter of great importance and we ask the House to accept it.

Mr. Waddington: The hon. Member seems to be finding difficulties that do not really exist. This amendment would restrict the Secretary of State's powers to make an order under clauses 1 and 17 at any time when, for whatever reason, parliamentary approval could not be obtained under the arrangements in clause 14(10)(a). The subparagraph and subsections which would be deleted enable him to make an order when "by reason of urgency" it appears to him that it is necessary to do so without the approval of both Houses for the draft. When an order is made in this way it lapses after 40 days unless during that period it has been approved in the same way as in the case of the draft. There is no question of the Home Secretary not having to come back to the House if he wants the powers to last for a year.
The object of this procedure is to enable the Secretary of State, in an emergency, to make an order when Parliament is not in session or when the matter is so urgent that it cannot wait until time can be found for debates in both Houses. The power has been used only once, when the Irish National Liberation Army was proscribed in July 1979, because of the need to move quickly and in step with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, who has separate but similar powers under the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978.
In practice, the use of the emergency arrangements is likely to involve either the making of a proscription order under clause 1, or an order under clause 17 bringing back into force, as a matter of urgency, a provision which had earlier been allowed to lapse. One example of a case where an order under clause 1 might be urgently needed would be that of an Irish terrorist group, previously unknown, which committed a series of attacks in Great Britain during the summer recess, or over Christmas. I am certain that there would be public outrage if such a group could not be immediately proscribed just because Parliament was not sitting.
We are satisfied that the safeguards in clause 14, which are the same as all cases involving the affirmative resolution procedure, provide an adequate means for Parliament to exercise its control over the operation of this aspect of the legislation.

Mr. Alex Carlile: Is the Minister really saying that the somewhat controversial use, only once in nine years, of a similar power is sufficient evidence to justify the inclusion of a power of this sort in a Bill that so fundamentally affects civil rights?

Mr. Waddington: Is the hon. Gentleman seriously saying that this is a draconian power when, if the Secretary of State makes the order, it lapses in any event after 40 days unless there are affirmative resolutions by both Houses of Parliament? It is difficult to see what all the fuss is about, and I ask the House to reject the amendment.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 102, Noes 196.

Division No. 141]
[9.48 pm


AYES


Alton, David
Litherland, Robert


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Ashdown, Paddy
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Loyden, Edward


Barron, Kevin
McCartney, Hugh


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
McGuire, Michael


Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


Bermingham, Gerald
McKelvey, William


Blair, Anthony
Mackenzie, Rt Hon Gregor


Boyes, Roland
McNamara, Kevin


Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)
McWilliam, John


Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)
Madden, Max


Bruce, Malcolm
Marek, Dr John


Buchan, Norman
Maxton, John


Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)
Maynard, Miss Joan


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Mikardo, Ian


Canavan, Dennis
Nellist, David


Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)
O'Brien, William


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Parry, Robert


Clay, Robert
Patchett, Terry


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)
Penhaligon, David


Cook, Frank (Stockton North)
Pike, Peter


Corbyn, Jeremy
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Cowans, Harry
Prescott, John


Craigen, J. M.
Richardson, Ms Jo


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Dewar, Donald
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)


Dixon, Donald
Rogers, Allan


Dormand, Jack
Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)


Dubs, Alfred
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Eadie, Alex
Sedgemore, Brian


Eastham, Ken
Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)


Ellis, Raymond
Skinner, Dennis


Evans, John (St. Helens N)
Smith, C.(Isl'ton S &amp; F'bury)


Fatchett, Derek
Snape, Peter


Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)
Soley, Clive


Fisher, Mark
Stott, Roger


Flannery, Martin
Strang, Gavin


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Godman, Dr Norman
Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)


Golding, John
Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)


Hamilton, James (M'well N)
Thorne, Stan (Preston)


Harman, Ms Harriet
Wainwright, R.


Haynes, Frank
Wallace, James


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Warden, Gareth (Gower)


Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)
Wareing, Robert


Home Robertson, John
Welsh, Michael


Howells, Geraint
Wilson, Gordon


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Winnick, David


Kirkwood, Archibald



Leadbitter, Ted
Tellers for the Ayes


Leighton, Ronald
Mr. A. J. Beith and


Lewis, Terence (Worsley)
Mr. Clement Freud




NOES


Ashby, David
Beggs, Roy


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Boscawen, Hon Robert


Baldry, Anthony
Brandon-Bravo, Martin


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Brittan, Rt Hon Leon






Budgen, Nick
McCusker, Harold


Burt, Alistair
Macfarlane, Neil


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
MacGregor, John


Chapman, Sydney
MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)


Clegg, Sir Walter
Maclean, David John.


Coombs, Simon
Macmillan, Rt Hon M.


Cope, John
McQuarrie, Albert


Cranborne, Viscount
Maginnis, Ken


Crouch, David
Major, John


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Malins, Humfrey


Dicks, T.
Malone, Gerald


Favell, Anthony
Maples, John


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Marlow, Antony


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Mather, Carol


Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)
Maude, Francis


Fox, Marcus
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Freeman, Roger
Merchant, Piers


Gale, Roger
Miller, Hal (B'grove)


Galley, Roy
Mills, Iain (Meriden)


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Miscampbell, Norman


Goodlad, Alastair
Mitchell, David (NW Hants)


Gregory, Conal
Moate, Roger


Griffiths, E. (B'y St Edm'ds)
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)
Montgomery, Fergus


Ground, Patrick
Morris, M. (N'hampton, S)


Grylls, Michael
Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)


Gummer, John Selwyn
Moynihan, Hon C.


Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)
Murphy, Christopher


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Neale, Gerrard


Hampson, Dr Keith
Needham, Richard


Hanley, Jeremy
Neubert, Michael


Hannam, John
Newton, Tony


Harvey, Robert
Nicholls, Patrick


Haselhurst, Alan
Norris, Steven


Hawkins, C. (High Peak)
Onslow, Cranley


Hawksley, Warren
Ottaway, Richard


Hayes, J.
Page, Richard (Herts SW)


Hayward, Robert
Pawsey, James


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Hickmet, Richard
Pollock, Alexander


Hicks, Robert
Powell, Rt Hon J. E. (S Down)


Hill, James
Powell, William (Corby)


Hind, Kenneth
Powley, John


Hirst, Michael
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Proctor, K. Harvey


Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)
Raffan, Keith


Holt, Richard
Rhodes James, Robert


Hooson, Tom
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Howard, Michael
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)
Robinson, Mark (N'port W)


Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)
Robinson, P. (Belfast E)


Hubbard-Miles, Peter
Roe, Mrs Marion


Hunt, David (Wirral)
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Rowe, Andrew


Hunter, Andrew
Ryder, Richard


Irving, Charles
Sackville, Hon Thomas


Jessel, Toby
Sayeed, Jonathan


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Jones, Robert (W Herts)
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Key, Robert
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Knight, Gregory (Derby N)
Silvester, Fred


Knight, Mrs Jill (Edgbaston)
Sims, Roger


Knowles, Michael
Skeet, T. H. H.


Knox, David
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Lang, Ian
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Latham, Michael
Speller, Tony


Lawler, Geoffrey
Spence, John


Lee, John (Pendle)
Spencer, D.


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)


Lester, Jim
Stanbrook, Ivor


Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)
Stanley, John


Lightbown, David
Stern, Michael


Lilley, Peter
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)


Lloyd, Ian (Havant)
Stevens, Martin (Fulham)


Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Luce, Richard
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Lyell, Nicholas
Stradling Thomas, J.


McCrea, Rev William
Sumberg, David


McCurley, Mrs Anna
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)





Temple-Morris, Peter
Watson, John


Terlezki, Stefan
Watts, John


Thomas, Rt Hon Peter
Wells, Bowen (Hertford)


Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)
Wheeler, John


Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)
Wilkinson, John


Thornton, Malcolm
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Thurnham, Peter
Winterton, Nicholas


Tracey, Richard
Wolfson, Mark


Trotter, Neville
Wood, Timothy


Twinn, Dr Ian
Woodcock, Michael


van Straubenzee, Sir W.
Yeo, Tim


Viggers, Peter
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Waddington, David



Wakeham, Rt Hon John
Tellers for the Noes:


Waller, Gary
Mr. Donald Thompson and


Wardle, C. (Bexhill)
Mr. Tim Sainsbury.

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. Soley: I beg to move amendment No. 43, in page 13, line 26, at end insert—
'(c) shall, if approved by Parliament, cease to have effect at the end of a period of 12 months unless renewed by resolution of each House of Parliament'.
We are seeking to allow the Government to get off a hook of their own making. The amendment will allow the proscription of organisations to expire over a period. In 1974, the proscription of organisations was thought to be one of the most important provisions of the current Act. I can do no better than quote Lord Jellicoe's comments in paragraph 210:
I believe that time has proved this judgment to be mistaken".
I think that everyone knows that it was a mistaken judgment. Lord Jellicoe's report did not recommend the abolition of proscription. In paragraph 208 he states:
I conclude, therefore, that proscription has had some—albeit relatively limited—beneficial effects.
In the same paragraph he stated that there were "presentational" issues. He meant that proscription discouraged displays of support for a proscribed organisation. He stated that there was a "practical" purpose, by which he meant that proscription banned collections. He added:
Both the presentational and practical purposes of proscription appear to me to be valid; the success of the provisions is questionable in the latter sphere, but, I believe, real in the former.
We believe that Lord Jellicoe's arguments for the presentational and practical advantages are extremely shaky. In paragraph 208 he argued that presentationally it had been successful because there had been few demonstrations or open displays of support for either the Provisional IRA or the INLA. However, the reason for that is their unpopularity. It has nothing to do with fear of arrest. It is clear to me and, I think, to most people that someone who went round saying, "I support the Provisional IRA," or, "I support the INLA," would put himself and others at risk.
There is another important point. There have been some displays of support, so why have there been so few arrests? Indeed, this section of the Act has hardly ever been used.

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Ordered,
That, at this day's sitting, the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Bill may be proceeded with though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Douglas Hogg.]

Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.

Mr. Soley: Lord Jellicoe argues that there is a practical advantage because there are few open collections of funds for the Provisional IRA or the INLA. But again, the


evidence is that someone would hardly go round a pub asking for money for the Provisional IRA. There may be one or two pubs or clubs in some areas where that could be done, but on the whole it would risk a punch-up to go round the average British pub asking for money for the Provisional IRA, especially after the bombing of, for example, Harrods. In addition, collections are in any case banned under clause 10.
The argument against proscription is very strong. It is an infringement of the principle of the freedom of speech. People should be prosecuted not for stating views and opinions but for criminal offences. In paragraph 210, Jellicoe says of that principle:
I have much sympathy with this view. If one was starting absolutely with a clean slate, proscription would I believe be low on the list of priorities for inclusion in counter-terrorist legislation.
Proscription, of course, enables the Provisional IRA and the INLA to present themselves as the persecuted and oppressed voice of Irish nationalism. They can claim that the British proscribe them but do not proscribe the Ulster Volunteer Force and the Red Hand commandos in Britain. Those organisations are proscribed in Northern Ireland under separate legislation.
In other words, yet again such organisations have a propaganda weapon. Credence is given to the romantic secret army image. I should add that proscription does not have a good track record, either internationally or historically. The attempts to proscribe the various Nazi organisations before the second world war were by and large counter-productive in western Europe. They forced those organisations to go underground, where their activities were less observable. It is significant that in most of the countries that tried to ban the Nazi movement there was a significant and powerful fifth column.
We are left with one problem, which Jellicoe feels to be important. He claims that de-proscribing would cause "a wave of public resentment". Personally, I doubt whether it would. In any event, politicians should be leaders. We should not do what we think is wrong because the public might be angry with us. At times, we need to stand up and say why something which may not be popular or well understood needs to be carried out nevertheless.
However, I can see that the Government are not prepared to risk that unpopularity. Therefore, we should allow the clause to lapse. That is precisely what the amendment does. At the end of the year, it would automatically lapse without any debate or further discussion unless Parliament as part of its normal procedures decided to reinstate it.
That would also get the Secretary of State off another hook on which he impaled himself when he unwisely resisted our amendment in Committee. It would have made the support of a proscribed organisation dependent on material or financial support. The Government managed to get themselves into great difficulties. That can be best exemplified by quoting the Minister in Committee:
The hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) asked what happens if a man says in a public place, 'I think we ought to support the IRA.' That should be a criminal offence.
What we are saying, using the Minister of State's own words, is that the statement, "I think we ought to support the IRA", is in fact, and should be, a criminal offence. There is an argument why it should be and an argument why it should not be. I say simply that it should not be an

offence. It is about freedom of speech, and not a criminal act in itself. Most important of all, if we say it is a criminal act, as has the Minister, then we had better start arresting people who say it, had we not? We had better start arresting people who say, "We are going to take power with the ballot box in the one hand and an Armalite in the other." Where will that get us?
The Minister continues:
Mere approval of an organisation is not caught by the Bill.
That was a contradiction of what he said earlier. He continued:
The object of the clause is to keep in check public statements about proscribed organisations." — [Official Report, Standing Committee D, 3 November 1983; c. 19–22.]
That cannot be desirable and it is certainly not practised, because the Government have yet to arrest people for statements of that kind, and I sincerely hope that they will not go down that road. If the Government have any wisdom, they will accept our amendment. It does not change the nature of the Bill in the way that they have so far resisted. It simply allows a part of the clause, proscription, to lapse at the end of the year without any risk of serious embarrassment to them, yet in a way that even Lord Jellicoe accepts is no longer a priority in the fight against terrorism. Lord Jellicoe thinks that on balance it is useful, but that it is a marginal balance. In this short debate, I have attempted to show that it is not only unnecessary but to some extent counter-productive, and it has certainly not been carried out in practice by the Government.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: The amendment has provided the opportunity — and the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) availed himself of it—for a reference to the unsatisfactory' character of the wording of clause 1, which would automatically be brought into effect in relation to any other organisation which might be proscribed by order. I think that the Standing Committee was almost totally dissatisfied with the wording, and the exposition of the wording, after long discussion.
The trouble about it is that, whereas substantively clause 1(1)(b) appears to relate to "financial support" or "contributions in money", the wider terms "other support" and "otherwise" are included in the subsection, and the Minister at that time resolutely refused to say that the rule of interpretation ejusdem generis would apply to it, and that those words would mean financial support or other property. I cannot believe that it is the intention to criminalise everything that could be comprised under the word "support" in general terms.
I notice in The Times of Friday 23 December 1983 a report about a musical group called the Eislea Collective. It appears that it had issued posters featuring the slogan "IRA", with the words "Long Kesh" beneath. The result was that Sir William Rees-Mogg, the chairman of the Arts Council, withdrew the grant, saying that it was political propaganda in favour of the IRA. The question arises whether that was support for the IRA. Sir William Rees-Mogg thought that it was. If so, was any criminal prosecution instituted or any action taken as a result of the musical group proceeding with the programme thus adorned? I take that as an illustration of the wide and undefined extent of the concept of support if it is unlimited.
Surely the intention is to ensure that the term "financial support" is interpreted in a reasonably wide and generous fashion, and that "contribution in money" is not restricted


to money in the narrow sense, but includes, as in clause 10(2), at present in another context, money and other property.
Consideration of the Bill is not complete when it leaves the House tonight, and the Government have an opportunity to take another look at the drafting of clause 1(2), to which the soft of order that we are debating would apply. It must be in the interests of whatever benefit is to be got from proscription that there should be no fuzzy edges round the actions and behaviour which would be criminalised by the proscription of an organisation, and I hope that the Minister, when he replies, will say that he will look in that light again at the wording of clause 1.
I do not think that it would be advantageous, if a new proscription were made, that it should automatically be terminated at the end of 12 months. I do not think that having proscribed, as we have, the IRA or the INLA, we would be anxious to incur the awkwardness of reproscribing after 12 months. No doubt the relative importance of a proscribed organisation may vary with the years, but I cannot but think that it is an inconvenience, which there is no benefit in incurring, to limit additional proscription orders to 12 months. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will neglect that advice from the Opposition Front Bench and accept the invitation to look seriously again at proscription as defined in clause 1.

Mr. Waddington: I shall, of course, look at the matter again in the light of what has been said by the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) and the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell). However, we are here discussing not the proscription powers but the nature of the parliamentary control over those powers. The amendment appears to be designed to give greater parliamentary control over the Bill's proscription powers, but, as I shall demonstrate, the effect would not have any similarity to what Opposition Members must have intended.
As the Bill stands, clause 14(10) provides that an order under clause 1 or clause 17 shall not be made unless a draft of the order has first been approved by resolution of each House of Parliament, except where, by reasons of urgency, it is necessary to make the order without a draft having been so approved. Subsection (11) goes on to set out the procedures that are to apply in those latter cases of urgency, namely, that the order shall be laid before Parliament and shall cease to have effect after 40 days unless it has been approved under the affirmative resolution procedure before the end of that period.
The amendment concerns only those orders made under subsection (11), those which, for reasons of urgency, have not first been approved in draft. That seems an odd sort of approach to apply what I suppose is designed as an additional safeguard to an order made under subsection (10)(b) but not to an order made under subsection (10)(a). Nor would this new alleged safeguard have any effect on the position of the two organisations already proscribed and listed in schedule 1.
The amendment also covers the question of the renewal of the Bill, or parts of it, but that already must be done annually by affirmative order as a result of clause 17, so the amendment would therefore add nothing of value.
Of course we recognise that it is a very serious matter to proscribe an organisation, but I do not accept that when a matter has been given the detailed consideration in Parliament and by Ministers which the affirmative

resolution procedure entails, it would be right for it to lapse only a year later. In those circumstances, I invite the House to reject the amendment.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 96, Noes 198.

Division No. 142]
[10.15 pm


AYES


Alton, David
Kirkwood, Archibald


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Leadbitter, Ted


Ashdown, Paddy
Leighton, Ronald


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Lewis, Terence (Worsley)


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Barron, Kevin
McGuire, Michael


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


Beith, A. J.
McKelvey, William


Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)
Mackenzie, Rt Hon Gregor


Bermingham, Gerald
McNamara, Kevin


Blair, Anthony
McWilliam, John


Boyes, Roland
Madden, Max


Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)
Marek, Dr John


Bruce, Malcolm
Maxton, John


Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)
Maynard, Miss Joan


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Meadowcroft, Michael


Canavan, Dennis
Mikardo, Ian


Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)
Nellist, David


Clay, Robert
Parry, Robert


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)
Patchett, Terry


Cohen, Harry
Penhaligon, David


Cook, Frank (Stockton North)
Pike, Peter


Corbyn, Jeremy
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Cowans, Harry
Prescott, John


Craigen, J. M.
Redmond, M.


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)
Richardson, Ms Jo


Dewar, Donald
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Dormand, Jack
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)


Dubs, Alfred
Rogers, Allan


Eadie, Alex
Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)


Eastham, Ken
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Ellis, Raymond
Sedgemore, Brian


Evans, John (St. Helens N)
Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)


Fatchett, Derek
Skinner, Dennis


Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)
Smith, C.(Isl'ton S &amp; F'bury)


Fisher, Mark
Soley, Clive


Flannery, Martin
Strang, Gavin


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Freud, Clement
Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)


Godman, Dr Norman
Thorne, Stan (Preston)


Golding, John
Wallace, James


Hamilton, James (M'well N)
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Harman, Ms Harriet
Wareing, Robert


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Welsh, Michael


Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)
Wilson, Gordon


Home Robertson, John
Winnick, David


Howells, Geraint



Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Janner, Hon Greville
Mr. Frank Haynes and


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Mr. Don Dixon.




NOES


Ashby, David
Cranborne, Viscount


Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.
Crouch, David


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Baldry, Anthony
Dicks, T.


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Favell, Anthony


Beggs, Roy
Fenner, Mrs Peggy


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Fox, Marcus


Brittan, Rt Hon Leon
Freeman, Roger


Budgen, Nick
Gale, Roger


Burt, Alistair
Galley, Roy


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Chapman, Sydney
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Goodlad, Alastair


Clegg, Sir Walter
Gregory, Conal


Coombs, Simon
Griffiths, E. (B'y St Edm'ds)


Cope, John
Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)






Ground, Patrick
MacGregor, John


Grylls, Michael
MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)


Gummer, John Selwyn
Maclean, David John.


Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)
Macmillan, Rt Hon M.


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
McQuarrie, Albert


Hampson, Dr Keith
Maginnis, Ken


Hanley, Jeremy
Major, John


Hannam, John
Malins, Humfrey


Harvey, Robert
Malone, Gerald


Haselhurst, Alan
Maples, John


Hawkins, C. (High Peak)
Marlow, Antony


Hawksley, Warren
Mather, Carol


Hayes, J.
Maude, Francis


Hayward, Robert
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Merchant, Piers


Hickmet, Richard
Miller, Hal (B'grove)


Hicks, Robert
Mills, Iain (Meriden)


Hill, James
Miscampbell, Norman


Hind, Kenneth
Mitchell, David (NW Hants)


Hirst, Michael
Moate, Roger


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)
Morris, M. (N'hampton, S)


Holt, Richard
Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)


Hooson, Tom
Moynihan, Hon C.


Howard, Michael
Murphy, Christopher


Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)
Neale, Gerrard


Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)
Needham, Richard


Hubbard-Miles, Peter
Newton, Tony


Hunt, David (Wirral)
Nicholls, Patrick


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Norris, Steven


Hunter, Andrew
Onslow, Cranley


Irving, Charles
Oppenheim, Philip


Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick
Osborn, Sir John


Jessel, Toby
Ottaway, Richard


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Page, Richard (Herts SW)


Jones, Robert (W Herts)
Pawsey, James


Key, Robert
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Knight, Gregory (Derby N)
Powell, Rt Hon J. E. (S Down)


Knowles, Michael
Powell, William (Corby)


Lang, Ian
Powley, John


Latham, Michael
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Lawler, Geoffrey
Proctor, K. Harvey


Lee, John (Pendle)
Raffan, Keith


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Rhodes James, Robert


Lester, Jim
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Lightbown, David
Robinson, Mark (N'port W)


Lilley, Peter
Robinson, P. (Belfast E)


Lloyd, Ian (Havant)
Roe, Mrs Marion


Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Luce, Richard
Rowe, Andrew


Lyell, Nicholas
Ryder, Richard


McCrea, Rev William
Sackville, Hon Thomas


McCurley, Mrs Anna
Sayeed, Jonathan


McCusker, Harold
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Macfarlane, Neil
Shelton, William (Streatham)





Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Thornton, Malcolm


Silvester, Fred
Thurnham, Peter


Sims, Roger
Tracey, Richard


Skeet, T. H. H.
Trotter, Neville


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Soames, Hon Nicholas
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Speller, Tony
Viggers, Peter


Spence, John
Waddington, David


Spencer, D.
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)
Waller, Gary


Stanbrook, Ivor
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Stanley, John
Watson, John


Steen, Anthony
Watts, John


Stern, Michael
Wells, Bowen (Hertford)


Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)
Wheeler, John


Stevens, Martin (Fulham)
Wilkinson, John


Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)
Winterton, Nicholas


Stradling Thomas, J.
Wolfson, Mark


Sumberg, David
Wood, Timothy


Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)
Woodcock, Michael


Temple-Morris, Peter
Yeo, Tim


Terlezki, Stefan
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Thomas, Rt Hon Peter



Thompson, Donald (Calder V)
Tellers for the Noes:


Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)
Mr. Tim Sainsbury and


Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)
Mr. Michael Neubert.

Question accordingly negatived.

Schedule 3

SUPPLEMENTAL PROVISIONS FOR SECTIONS 1 TO 13

Mr. Waddington: I beg to move amendment No. 50, in page 20, line 24, after 'Terrorism', insert '(Temporary Provisions)'.
This amendment is consequential on the acceptance by the Committee of an amendment to insert the words "(Temporary Provisions)" in the short title. It amends the reference in paragraph 8 of schedule 3 which makes a consequential amendment to the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978. I ask the House to accept the amendment.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: At the conclusion of the Report stage, it is only right to lay a wreath upon this memorial to the only amendment that the Government saw fit to accept in the entire Committee stage with the hope that they may yet find enlightenment in another place.

Amendment agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Bill

Mr. Brittan: I beg to move, that the Bill be now read the Third time.
The Bill fulfils the commitment made to the House by my right hon. Friend Viscount Whitelaw, then Home Secretary, in March 1983, that the Government would give effect to the changes to the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1976 recommended by Lord Jellicoe and that we should do this by introducing new legislation.
I believe that I speak for the majority of hon. Members in expressing once again our gratitude to Lord Jellicoe for his willingness to undertake the daunting task of reviewing the operation of the legislation and for the painstaking, thorough and, above all, authoritative character of his conclusions and recommendations. Even those who, in Committee and elsewhere, have opposed the need for a Bill have in most cases welcomed the changes recommended by Lord Jellicoe.
I thank my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State for his invaluable work in steering the Bill through Committee and my hon. Friends who were members of the Committee for their contribution to it. The debate was almost always constructive and good natured.
I do not wish to spend a long time tonight discussing the merits of the Bill. The House has had plenty of opportunity, during the nine years in which the legislation has been in force, to consider the measures which it embodies and which are re-enacted here with the improvements recommended by Lord Jellicoe. Despite the Opposition view, formed in some extraordinary way in the past 12 months, that we do not need these measures and that they are unacceptable—although they introduced them and have been supporting them for nine years—I believe that there is substantial public support for the measures. The Department receives a steady flow of letters expressing concern, if anything, that the measures taken by the Government to combat terrorism are not strong enough—a flow which, as hon. Members may know from their own postbags, increases dramatically following the kind of outrage that we experienced before Christmas but which has still not led the Opposition to change the view that they so inappropriately put forward last autumn.
The changes to the existing legislation incorporated in the Bill are designed to preserve the balance between public safety and individual rights. They are not dramatic, but they are none the less important for that. Under the Bill, exclusion orders will have a life of three years and the police will have to make a fresh case, based on recent intelligence, if they want a new order to be made to replace one which has expired. It will no longer be possible to exclude a British citizen from a part of the United Kingdom in which he has been living for three years. Until now the exemption has operated only after 20 years. Once the new arrangements in clause 7 are in force, it will be easier for excluded persons to make representations against their exclusion and they will be guaranteed, in almost all circumstances, the right to a personal interview with one of the advisers.
I accept that these improvements will not in any way answer those who argue that the exclusion powers are wrong in principle, but even they will have to agree that the changes have made the measures less draconian, and will welcome them. We have already had a most interesting debate about the issue which has generated more concern, both in Committee and among interested groups, than any other aspect of the Bill — the application of the powers of arrest and detention to international terrorists. I do not propose to say any more about that subject now.
I shall, however, deal briefly with the exclusion from clause 12 of "domestic" terrorism. Lord Jellicoe said that he had considered and rejected the idea that the powers should be available for use against persons whose terrorist activity related purely to "domestic" matters. I share his assessment of the position. As I have said, I shall be ready to reconsider it should the threat posed by domestic groups become more serious. That is a proper and justifiable view to take.

Mr. D. E. Thomas: In his earlier response to my intervention, I believe that the Home Secretary—we shall see this in Hansard tomorrow—said that "so far" the power had not been used in relation to groups that were concerned with possible political domestic violence relating to Scotland or Wales. Will the Home Secretary expand on those words and explain how far is "so far"? When do arsonists, whom all hon. Members condemn, become terrorists in his definition?

Mr. Brittan: It is a matter not when they become terrorists, but when the degree of threat that they pose is sufficiently serious to justify taking the measures that we have taken in respect of other forms of terrorism. Groups such as the Scottish National Liberation Army and the Animal Rights Militia have mounted attacks on public figures by means of postal devices and arson. Serious though such incidents are, they do not compare in scale or effectiveness with the attacks by the IRA or the INLA or the vicious attacks that some international terrorists have carried out in London. It is not possible to specify in advance or to imagine a series of incidents that would lead one to take a different view, but it is right that we should be chary of coming to that view prematurely.
There can have been few pieces of legislation which, during a 10-year life, have had as much parliamentary rime regularly devoted to them as the prevention of terrorism legislation. The Government are satisfied that the Bill reflects the amount of care and consideration that it has received over the years. Of course, it amounts to an infringement of civil liberties, but I believe that that infringement is as small as is consistent with providing the public with the best protection that Parliament can provide against the havoc that can be wrought by terrorists.

Mr. Gerald Kaufman: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) for his work in leading for the Opposition on the Bill in Standing Committee and throughout most of today's proceedings. The Opposition owe him a great debt for all his work. I thank also my hon. Friends who served on the Standing Committee and stated our arguments on the Bill.
On the Second Reading last October, the Home Secretary said that the powers that the Bill contains would


in other circumstances be unacceptable. Tonight, in an earlier debate, he said that those powers are inimical to our tradition of civil liberties. Most hon. Members would agree with those statements. The Government must justify to the House in what circumstances unacceptable powers, inimical to our tradition of civil liberties, should be accepted.
The first Bill of this kind, introduced by the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Jenkins) in 1974, was to meet the circumstances that arose following the horrific Birmingham pub bombings on 21 November 1974. That Act was intended to last for six months. In fact, it lasted until 1976 when it was replaced by another temporary provisions Act which was intended to last, in the first place, for one year. Eight years later, we are being asked to replace that temporary provisions Act with an Act which is intended to last for five years.
The Bill's original title was the Prevention of Terrorism Bill. The Committee that considered it forced the words "Temporary Provisions" into its title. It was as well that that was done, to remind the Government that this legislation, now, after various manifestations, in its 10th year on the statute book, was originally intended to survive for only six months in response to a specific emergency.
Can the House really be sure that when the new Act expires, some time in 1989, it will not immediately be replaced by yet another version, which may be scheduled to last even longer or may even be intended to be permanent, but which may still be called temporary? A six-month Act is finding a permanent place on the statute book for powers which the Home Secretary describes as wholly unacceptable and inimical to our tradition of civil liberties.
The powers in the Bill are obnoxious to all who believe in democratic freedoms. They include the power of internal exile and the power of prolonged detention without charge. Even the right in clause 7 to make representations against an exclusion order is an abuse of the rule of law, since the person making the representations will not be allowed to see or hear the evidence that he is required to refute. Not only will he have to prove his innocence, but he will not even be told of what offence he has to prove himself innocent.

Mr. Robert Parry: My right hon. Friend makes the important point that the Bill has a life of five years. Is he aware that most detentions take place in Liverpool and that people who have visited my constituency for trade union conferences, weddings and even funerals have been detained and had their fingerprints taken and that, even though they have been released without being charged with any offence, their fingerprints are kept on file? Is that not a travesty of civil liberties?

Mr. Kaufman: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, because I shall be dealing with the effect of the legislation on innocent people. The point that he makes is relevant to Liverpool, because a high proportion of those detained under the legislation are detained on Merseyside.
If the powers in the Bill are to begin to be justified, the Government have the duty to prove to the House that they are both necessary and effective. They have so far proved neither. Between 24 November 1974, when the first Act came into operation, and 30 September last year, 5,683 persons were detained under the legislation. Of those, only

116 were charged—2 per cent. of the total. Of those 116, 12 were acquitted and one was awaiting trial, and four cases were dropped. The remaining 99–1·75 per cent. of the total of those detained—were found guilty. Of those 99, 44–0·8 per cent. of the total—were fined, discharged or given suspended sentences, and 27–0·5 per cent.—were imprisoned for less than one year. None of those people could be described as dangerous terrorists. We are left with 28 people out of 5,683, or 0·5 per cent., who were imprisoned for more than one year. Of those, 21 were imprisoned for more than five years.
The House must ask itself whether a success rate of 0·5 per cent., at most, justifies the continuation of powers that the Home Secretary himself describes as wholly unacceptable and inimical to our tradition of civil liberties.
Of the persons detained, only 298–5·24 per cent.—were subject to successful exclusion orders. The Act has been responsible for the detention of nearly 5,700 people, of whom 95 per cent. were innocent of any offence under this of any other legislation.

Sir John Biggs-Davison: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Kaufman: In justifying the renewal of the powers, the Government point to Lord Jellicoe's inquiry. That inquiry cannot be regarded as holy writ, vindicating and justifying all that follows from it. Its terms of reference required the acceptance of
the continuing need for legislation against terrorism".
My right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), commenting on the appointment of Lord Jellicoe, said that he would examine the conclusions of the inquiry with the greatest, but most sceptical, care. In advance, we made it clear that we would not necessarily accept the inquiry as the final word. After Lord Jellicoe reported, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook said:
on the most critical question of balance between protection and liberty he comes down on the wrong side of the argument"—[Official Report, 7 March 1983; Vol. 38, c. 569.]
On that basis, 10 months ago the Opposition voted against the renewal of the 1976 Act. The Government have no right to quote Lord Jellicoe in aid as some universally accepted objective authority, especially as they themselves refused to implement three of Lord Jellicoe's key recommended safeguards: first, that police applications to detain suspects beyond 48 hours before charge should be approved by the Home Secretary personally; secondly, that officers at ports should continue to have the right to detain persons without suspicion only to ascertain whether they have been, or may be, involved in terrorism, for up to 12 hours, after which they should have reasonable suspicion; and, thirdly, that suspects should have an absolute right to see a solicitor after 48 hours detention. How effective have the Acts been in achieving what their titles claim—the prevention of terrorism? It is a sad and horrific fact that, despite this legislation, savage acts of terrorism have continued, the most recent being the sickening bombing of Harrods last month. The Secretary of State has cited the Harrods bombing as an example of the justification for this legislation, but that bombing is an example of the failure of the legislation. Nine years of this legislation did not prevent the Harrods bombing, and so far it has not been effective in bringing the perpetrators to justice.
No one expects any legislation against crime to be wholly effective, but the Home Secretary would carry


more conviction if he responded positively to the question posed by my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith and if he said—we would not have expected any details—that, to his positive knowledge, specific terrorist acts which might otherwise have taken place did not take place precisely and solely because of this legislation.

Mr. Richard Hickmet: How would he know?

Mr. Kaufman: Precisely. He would not know. Yet he justifies the legislation by claiming that he does.
The Home Secretary has been unable to demonstrate that this legislation has been uniquely and necessarily preventive or successful in apprehending those who have committed terrorist acts. In effect, he has admitted the reverse, for on Second Reading he told the House:
I need only remind hon. Members of the shooting of the Israeli ambassador here in London last summer — an assassination attempt for which those responsible are now serving long sentences."—[Official Report, 24 October 1983; Vol. 47, c. 54.]
Those would-be assassins were caught without the use of the prevention of terrorism legislation. They would have been caught had that legislation never existed. Indeed, other legislation, not intended solely to deal with terrorism, has been more successful in countering terrorism that this legislation, specifically designed for the purpose.

Mr. Brittan: I apologise for intervening now, but I was so staggered at something that the right hon. Gentleman said—the touchstone of the accuracy of his remarks—that I thought I had better check. I was right. He was wholly wrong in saying that the three recommendations by Lord Jellicoe would not be implemented.
There was the suggestion that the Home Secretary personally should be responsible for extensions. That assurance has been given and is already in effect. As to 12 hours' detention at ports, the right hon. Gentleman should know that that will be in the supplemental order where it logically belongs. As to the right to see a solicitor after 48 hours. it has been made abundantly clear that that would be dealt with in the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill in the exact terms of Lord Jellicoe's recommendation.
The right hon. Gentleman ought not to found his argument on a mis-statement of that kind.

Mr. Kaufman: We are grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for that commitment on the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill.

Mr. Brittan: That really will not do. The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that he must not use language in that way.

Mr. Kaufman: As I said, we are grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman—

Mr. Brittan: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Kaufman: I am responding to the right hon. and learned Gentleman. We are grateful to him for his assurance with regard to the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill. Those of us serving on that Committee will note what he says and expect that undertaking to be fully observed by the end of our consideration.

Mr. Brittan: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Kaufman: In a moment. I have something else to say in response to the right hon. and learned Gentleman.
I studied the Bill with great care before rising to speak. I am aware that clause 12(3) says:
A person arrested under this section shall not be detained in right of the arrest for more than forty-eight hours after his arrest; but the Secretary of State may, in any particular case, extend the period of forty-eight hours by a period or periods specified by him.
I now take it that the Home Secretary is going on record as asserting—and is assuring the House—that such cases will not go before a junior Minister, such as an Under-Secretary, at any stage, but that every one will be dealt with personally by himself.

Mr. Brittan: The right hon. Gentleman is wriggling, but he will not succeed. He is now trying to suggest, deliberately or because he has not bothered to read the proceedings, that the assurances I have just given are new ones that he has managed to elicit. He knows perfectly well that the three points I made are already on record. For him now to pretend that this is something new is an attempt to conceal the fact. In suggesting that the recommendations were not being implemented, he was saying something that was wholly without foundation.

Mr. Kaufman: I am most grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman. Of course I studied the Committee proceedings; I would not dream of coming here without doing so. One reason why I wanted to refer to clause 12(3), which I have now done, and of which I was fully aware before the right hon. and learned Gentleman intervened in his fulsome indignation, was to check whether every one of these applications will now go to the desk of the Secretary of State. That is fine, very good, excellent.
The would-be assassins of the Israeli ambassador, to whom the Secretary of State referred in his speech, were caught irrespective of the legislation—either that which is on the statute book or that which is before us this evening.
I want to make it clear, so that there shall be no doubt on the subject, that Opposition Members detest and loathe terrorism. We reject any notion or claim that any political aims or objectives can justify murder and mayhem of the kind that this island has to endure from time to time, and that Northern Ireland has to endure all the time. We in the Labour party want to prevent terrorism. We want to pursue terrorism. We believe with all our hearts that it is unacceptable to give way to terrorism.
Giving way to terrorism can show itself in two ways: first, in yielding to terrorists' demands as a result of their filthy crimes, and we in the Labour party are totally opposed to that; and, secondly, in undermining the fabric of our democratic society, and so handing to the terrorists a victory that they do not deserve and of which they must equally be deprived. It is because we hate the terrorists and their methods, and because we wish to protect democracy against them, that we shall vote in the No Lobby tonight.

Mr. Proctor: I shall not delay the House long, but I think it right to place on record tonight our thanks to my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary and my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State for the careful, patient and diligent way in which they have answered our queries and amendments, both on the Floor of the House and in Committee.
The strange aspect of this legislation is not the attitude of the Government, but that of Her Majesty's Opposition.


[HON. MEMBERS: "Boring."] Hon. Members may find it incredibly boring, but I shall continue. On Second Reading, the Official Opposition moved a reasoned amendment, and 144 Labour Members voted for it, and not for the Bill's Second Reading. Then 46 Labour Back Benchers voted against the Second Reading completely. So there was a split in the Labour party on the matter.
Why have Her Majesty's Opposition changed their mind? Why did Labour Ministers introduce this legislation in 1974 and 1976, whereas now, in this Parliament, its Front Bench sides with the pressures from its Back Benches against it? Is it because the source of the contention—the question of Northern Ireland being an integral part of the United Kingdom—has been settled? No, the question remains. If it is not that, perhaps those who seek to detach Northern Ireland from the United Kingdom by bullet and bomb have changed their aims and no longer pursue violence. No, not at all. Is it a change of tactics of the terrorists that makes our anti-terrorist legislation redundant or counter-productive? No, it is not that either.
For the parliamentary Labour party and Her Majesty's Opposition, the change is not one of mind, logic or intelligence on this subject; it is a change in the composition of the parliamentary Labour party. It is the shrinkage of the PLP in the House following the 1983 general election and the deliberate and determined shift to the left of the remaining Labour Members that has produced the tidal flow that has washed over the previously moderate Opposition Front Bench.
The right hon. Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman) talks about his concern about terrorism, and we remember what he said before Christmas about the Harrods bombing:
We in the House of Commons, and the British people whom we represent, are united in our utter and implacable determination to stand firm against the evil men who perpetrated this deed, and who now characteristically and contemptibly, seek to creep away from the consequences of their inhumanity. The British Parliament will make no concessions to the bullet and the bomb.
We welcome the additional security measures that the Home Secretary has announced and we earnestly hope that they will grant a greater measure of safety to our people as they go about their lawful and peaceful occasions" — [Interruption.]
I do not know why Labour Members are heckling as I quote the words of the shadow Home Secretary. The right hon. Gentleman continued:
Every effort must and will be made to trace and capture those responsible for Saturday's outrage, together with their fellow gangsters. All of our people are aware of the risks they face and know that they must be accepted if the methods and processes of democracy are to be upheld." — [Official Report, 19 December 1983; Vol. 51, c. 21.]

Mr. Flannery: The hon. Gentleman is even embarrassing the Government Front Bench.

Mr. Proctor: Are those not empty words in view of the deeds of Her Majesty's Opposition when it comes to the consideration of prevention of terrorism legislation? Should not the people of our country know that they are voting against legislation which proscribes the IRA and the Irish National Liberation Army? Do the people know that that is what the Opposition are voting against? Do they know that they are—

Mr. Max Madden: You Fascist toerag.

Mr. Proctor: The Opposition are obviously demonstrating the great attributes of democracy and free speech. Do the people know that they are siding with terrorists when it comes to exclusion? Are they aware of the hypocrisy of the Opposition when they seek to criticise and oppose legislation which they were pleased to support when they were in office? Thanks to the Government, especially my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary, the recommendations of Lord Jellicoe have been inserted in legislation, including safeguards which will continue for the life of the legislation, which cannot exceed five years.
The right hon. Member for Ardwick talked about what will happen in five years' time. I hope that there will be no terrorism in five years' time. That will be the real motive force for making the legislation redundant. But if in five years's time there is terrorism that is connected with Northern Ireland or any other part of the United Kingdom, or with international terrorism, surely the Government would have a duty to legislate against dangers similar to those that we are now seeking to counter, and to introduce even more effective measures. The right hon. Gentleman and the Opposition are full of empty gestures tonight when it comes to terrorist activity.
My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs has referred to international terrorism, which the Bill covers. He said:
We recognise very strongly indeed that terrorism wherever it occurs must be unreservedly condemned and whether terrorism takes place in Birmingham or Pretoria or any other city or place around the world it must be treated as the scourge of our modern times and opposed by all means possible and any qualification to such a condemnation would be inappropriate and would be unjustified.
Tonight, the Opposition put down that unacceptable and unjustified qualification to our campaign and war against the terrorists in the United Kingdom, and I hope that the people of our country take note of that.

11 pm

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: There are essentially three elements in the Bill. To one of them, the exclusion orders, my hon. Friends and I have been opposed, not recently, but ever since this legislation was introduced 10 years ago. We regret that we failed in our attempt to remove that element from the Bill during our proceedings. That leaves two elements.
One element is part I, dealing with the power of proscription and the two organisations which are proscribed under it. Regretfully, I have to say, as I have said before, that I cannot imagine that it would be thought to make sense if the House today said that circumstances had so changed that whatever justification there was 10 years ago for that proscription had ceased to exist.
The remaining element is one which we discussed at length this evening. I refer to the special powers of arrest and detention. The House should not be under any misapprehension about the exceptional nature of those powers or why they are held to be relvant to the prevention of terrorism. I must trouble the House with a few paragraphs from a report which appeared just before Christmas in the Belfast Telegraph. It said:
The three held in London are not, it is understood, suspected of being directly involved in the bombing.
Special Branch and anti-terrorist squad detectives have rounded up known IRA sympathisers and are now pressing them for information.


The majority will not be suspected of having directly taken part in the attack, but it is thought that they could lead to the bombers.
After listening carefully to the speech of the Home Secretary and to his explanation for the fact that part IV extends to terrorist organisations not connected with the affairs of the United Kingdom, it should be clear to all hon. Members that this legislation arms the police and security forces with exceptional powers. That being so, my hon. Friends and I must take account of the view stated in the Jellicoe report that the
arrest powers … have proved themselves far too valuable to be dispensed with while a substantial threat from terrorism remains".
We cannot remain deaf to the statements made to us by those who know that the existence of such powers is, and can be, the main means of detecting and bringing to punishment those who are guilty of terrorism. That being so, we feel obliged, despite our strong objection to the second element, parts II and III, not to oppose its passage tonight.
It was on a motion of mine in Committee that the Bill was adorned with the words in brackets "Temporary Provisions." We have been obliged reluctantly to accept — and it is a historical fact — that terrorism connected with the affairs of Northern Ireland is the reason why the measure was placed on the statute book and is still the reason why it remains there. That does not, for those of us who represent constituencies in Northern Ireland, make the provisions any less temporary.
Nor does it lessen our hope and belief that before five years have run their course these powers will no longer be found to be necessary. We do not regard them as a permanent, lasting and irremovable burden on those whom we represent or on this kingdom. On the contrary, we believe that the sincere application by this House and Her Majesty's Government to their undertakings to the Province will bring about circumstances in which we shall be able to look back on this legislation as a phase that has passed.

Mr. Alex Carlile: On Second Reading I made it clear that we on these Benches accepted the need for temporary legislation of this type—the appalling terrorism that has taken place in London since that debate of course has not made us change our minds—but we regard the Bill as oppressive by its very nature.
I also made it clear at that time that we regarded it as being unduly draconian. Indeed, if the statutory provisions were interpreted in the spirit of the speech made tonight by the hon. Member for Billericay (Mr. Proctor), nothing could more clearly highlight how draconian in its operation this measure could be. However, I think that I can say with some confidence that the spirit and feel of the hon. Gentleman's speech will make decent Conservatives shudder when they read it tomorrow morning.
We will not vote against the Bill, because to do so would indicate that there should be no legislation of this type; whereas we accept, as I said, that this type of legislation is required. But by abstaining on Third Reading, we signal our belief that the Bill should be further amended in the other place. Indeed, Liberal and Social Democratic peers will table amendments in the other place and will seek to ensure that they take advantage

of the opportunity to do so which we did not have, not having had a Member on the Committee that considered the Bill.
In making our judgment on Third Reading, we must bear in mind a number of underlying considerations, one being—this leads us to the conclusion that legislation of this type is needed—that the Government have a duty to protect the largest possible number of citizens to the greatest possible extent, but within the acceptable limits of our legal and social system and standards.
On the other hand, we as Liberals and Social Democrats — [Hon. Members: "Where are they?"] — find this denigration of a balanced view, as I am sure the people of this country will find it highly offensive. We take the view that we must never cease in our vigilance to protect the private citizen against laws that involve the risk of arbitrary application without regard to natural justice. That risk looms large in some parts of the Bill. In the wake of the Harrods bombing, in a number of cases the nightmare of the knock on the door in the night has unjustly become a reality. [Laughter.] The case of the McLelland family in north Wales is an example. It is obvious to those of us who take an interest in the people of north Wales, rather than in what some hon. Members seem to regard as the more hilarious aspects of the legislation, that what happened to Mr. and Mrs. McLelland was nothing more than a fishing expedition for possible information, rather than being based on any reasonable suspicion that they were involved in, or with, a proscribed organisation.
Perhaps more important by far, the greatest injustice imposed by the Bill is not that of being detained temporarily without reason, but rather the risk of internal exile, founded upon sparse information and remote hearsay. That danger too must be guarded against, but it is not properly safeguarded against in the Bill.
We must bear in mind—I am sure this is a reality— the fact that every person who is unjustly excluded from Great Britain and escorted on to the plane represents an atom of resentment that is liable to split and mushroom into terrorism.
In considering these provisions we must recognise that, while both Shackleton and Jellicoe thought on balance that the powers of which we speak were effective in reducing terrorism in Great Britain, those conclusions were reached without an objective scrutiny of any detailed evidence of the operation of the provisions from case to case.
As I think at least Opposition Members would agree, even official Opposition Members, an exclusion order is potentially devastating for the family and the job prospects of the person excluded. There is no right of appeal or scrutiny of the individual cases arising from the Bill. We are very unhappy that, on Third Reading, not having had the opportunity to table amendments in Standing Committee, we are faced with a Bill that still contains no provision for scrutiny. The nominated advisers to date have undoubtedly been skilful and fair, but that is not enough. We need at least to protect people who are subjected to exclusion orders through some quasi-judicial procedure.
In new clause 1 we proposed a framework which might be used to provide that scrutiny, but it was not accepted. That framework could also be used to provide civil redress against proven wrongs. That would do much to reduce the resentment felt in, for example, the cases which the peace people in Northern Ireland have highlighted. A man may serve long and lonely years in prison and want to avoid


being involved in terrorism again. Such a person can be arbitrarily and wrongly excluded from Great Britain and forced by pressure on his family to take part in terrorism in Northern Ireland. The Bill does nothing to alleviate such cases.
The Government have failed to come to grips with many of the important civil liberties issues which cause great anxiety. Of course I accept that there remains, on the one hand — [HON. MEMBERS: "On the one hand."] We are not ashamed of saying "On the one hand". It is high time that the Government took a balanced view. We believe that the Government have not gone any distance to meet out misgivings. [Interruption].
Our view is that we should not be seen in this House—

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Paul Dean): Order. The House believes in freedom of speech. The hon. Member is entitled to be heard.

Mr. Carlile: We should not indulge ourselves —[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—in over-reaction of the type expressed in Committee, which is typified by the hon. Member for Billericay. This legislation could be made more effective, but in a more acceptable form.

Mr. Bermingham: I put on record tonight that which I put on record at the beginning of the Bill's passage— that the measure is unnecessary. A series of simple points demonstrates that. In Committee I asked the Minister of State how many people had been prosecuted under section 2 of the Act. I was told that the total was two. Both charges were withdrawn and the offence of breach of the peace substituted. We do not need the exclusion orders any more, simply because they are used less and less.
The legislation has served its purpose. Criminals should be dealt with by the criminal law. Terrorists are murderers and bombers and they are given dignity by being given a special place in law. We should seek to avoid that. Terrorists are no different from any other criminals and they should be treated accordingly. We have adequate laws to deal with them.
When asked about clause 12, the Home Secretary said that the question of extension had been dealt with by a circular. That worries me greatly because circulars are not the way to legislate or to provide safeguards in legislation. Will the Home Secretary give an undertaking that he will inform the House if at any stage that circular is withdrawn or altered in any way? It is of considerable concern to people outside the straightforward, as it were, Irish question. In Committee it was shown in speech after speech that there were many interest groups in Africa and the far east who were worried about the meaning of clause 12. We should be given an undertaking about the circular.
Like its predecessors, the Bill has been conceived and debated against a background of horror and acts which emanate from the land from whence I came, Ireland. It is a Bill which acts basically against the Irish and gives offence to many Irish people.

Mr. Parry: I agree with my hon. Friend. As one of the few hon. Members of the House who were born in the Republic of Ireland, does he agree that the Bill

discriminates not only against the Irish, whether from the Republic, Northern Ireland or the mainland, but particularly against Roman Catholics?

Mr. Bermingham: The legislation has, tragically, had that effect. The solution to the Irish problem does not lie in legislation of this sort, but in beginning to ask the Irish what they want. They have not been asked since the days of Strongbow. Should we not ask the Irish how they see their future, in or out of the context of the North, the South or England. That is the only way forward. The way forward does not lie in setting the Irish up as a separate entity for whom special legislation is needed.
I shall vote against the Bill for the simple reason that if we are to have a series of islands where all men are thought to be equal, legislation should always lie equally in respect of all men. To differentiate between certain groups is in itself an affront to the concept of equality and to the concept of history that we have in the House.

Mr. D. E. Thomas: All hon. Members who have spoken in the debate have indicated their distaste for the legislation. Some have indicated a liberal and libertarian objection to it. Some hon. Members have felt unable to vote according to their conscience, but I leave that as their problem.
In the final stages of the debate I want to deal with one central issue, the recommendation by Lord Jellicoe that guidance should be issued to police services throughout Great Britain by circular on the proper use and limits on use of clauses 1 and 2. As has already been referred to by hon. Members, in London and north Wales recently there has been evidence of the misuse of the legislation by police forces and also evidence of a deliberate attempt by the media to give the impression that action was being taken when it was not. We have seen the phenomenon of moral panic where the media have been manipulated, whether deliberately or indirectly, by sources close to police services. The impression has been given that the arrest and detention of certain persons was connected with the tragic and appalling murders at Harrods, when there was no such connection.
Much reference has been made to the Harrods bombing and the relevance of this form of legislation to it. I shall not detain the House by quoting at length from the papers, but on Thursday 19 January the Liverpool Echo wrote:
Armed detectives probing the Harrods bombing outrage arrested two people during a swoop in Abergele, North Wales".
suggesting a connection, yet by the Saturday the same paper was able to say:
From the beginning of the inquiry it has been understood that there was no question of any direct link between the couple and the bombers.
The Standard of Thursday 19 January suggested another connection, so it is clear that some police source of information or misinformation was active in seeking to justify what had happened.
The Daily Telegraph of 20 January made the allegations referred to earlier in the debate about an apparent link between the IRA and Welsh nationalists who had been burning down holiday cottages. I quote from a report by John Weeks and James Allan:
In return for money and other assistance from the IRA, the Welsh nationalists are believed to have provided safe houses in Wales for Irish terrorists on the run.
That kind of irresponsible journalism can only lead to a situation in which not only Irish persons but all other


ethnic and cultural minorities in the United Kingdom are labelled through this legislation as somehow dissident and a threat to the state.
The evidence from the GLC ethnic minorities unit of the way in which the legislation has operated in London confirms that it has been used to harass political activists to prevent demonstrations and the expression of opposition to events in Ireland and to justify fishing raids for intelligence and information.
The events at Abergele were thus not isolated incidents. The figures given by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) show that it is the usual practice for this legislation to be used to detain people who are subsequently not charged under it. It is a catch-all intervention in people's financial affairs, as the allegations in the Abergele case show, and in their private lives, as other detentions and raids have shown.
Will the Home Secretary give an assurance today that the guidance demanded by Lord Jellicoe will be given and that it will be made clear to police forces in Merseyside, London, north Wales, all the port areas and all other places where the legislation is used that it shall not be misused as it clearly has been by certain police forces recently, particularly in the Abergele incident?

Mr. Simon Hughes: I shall be brief. I speak for myself and not for my party.
The judgment that Members have to make when they debate matters of this kind is never easy, as they have to try to reconcile the liberty of the individual with the desire of all of us to ensure that terrorism finds no place within our shores. I have reached the view that, in the difficult task of trying as a Parliament to produce a peaceful solution for Northern Ireland and its people, it is vital that the flag of civil liberty should be held higher now than ever before.
When we have to proclaim the principles by which we act, while respecting the difficult journey that other hon. Members have to make before reaching their decisions about how to vote on the specifics of legislation that will never be perfect, I believe that it is important, above all, that the rights of the people of Northern Ireland as individuals and the rights of those temporarily on this side of the Irish sea are seen to be the same as those for all other citizens and as we should wish for all our fellow citizens at all times. It is counter-productive to tilt the balance against the individual in the way that the legislation does that.
For that reason, and while hesitating to disagree with those of my colleagues who come to a different view, I shall oppose the legislation. I believe that, in the long term, the sooner we rid ourselves of what is intended to be a derogation of standards which we as a country have long proclaimed, the sooner we shall resolve the problems of terrorism, which are the subject of tonight's debate.

Mr. Parry: I shall be brief. Like many of my hon. Friends, I wish to record my complete opposition to the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery), others of my hon. Friends and I have always spoken against such draconian measures.
1 am a Liverpool Member. I have received many representations about people who have been arrested and

detained in Liverpool. The Liverpool to Dublin boat sails from my constituency, as does the Liverpool to Belfast boat. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) said earlier, the large numbers of people who have been detained, and the few who have been convicted, have made us opponents of the Bill.
The centre of the Liverpool Irish community is in my constituency. I have received many representations on behalf of those who have been detained, many of whom have not been found guilty of any offence and have been released. Yet innocent people have their fingerprints and photographs taken and kept on file. That is a travesty of British justice.
Other incidents have caused great concern to the Irish community in Liverpool. For example, people who have been detained under the prevention of terrorism provisions have lost the opportunity of promotion at work, and, in some cases, have actually lost their jobs. I know that some people have had nervous breakdowns, or even tried to commit suicide. Those are the tragic side effects of these provisions.
I and my colleagues will vote against the Bill. I hope that the Home Secretary will take on board the question of innocent people having their fingerprints and photographs kept on file, and do something about that.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 184, Noes 84.

Division No. 143]
[11.33 pm


AYES


Ashby, David
Hayes, J.


Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.
Hayward, Robert


Baldry, Anthony
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Beggs, Roy
Hickmet, Richard


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Hicks, Robert


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Hind, Kenneth


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Hirst, Michael


Brittan, Rt Hon Leon
Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)


Budgen, Nick
Holt, Richard


Burt, Alistair
Hooson, Tom


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Howard, Michael


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)


Chapman, Sydney
Hubbard-Miles, Peter


Clegg, Sir Walter
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Cope, John
Hunter, Andrew


Cranborne, Viscount
Jessel, Toby


Crouch, David
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Jones, Robert (W Herts)


Dicks, T.
Key, Robert


Favell, Anthony
Knight, Gregory (Derby N)


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Knowles, Michael


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Lang, Ian


Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)
Latham, Michael


Fox, Marcus
Lawler, Geoffrey


Freeman, Roger
Lee, John (Pendle)


Gale, Roger
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Galley, Roy
Lightbown, David


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Lilley, Peter


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)


Goodlad, Alastair
Luce, Richard


Gregory, Conal
Lyell, Nicholas


Griffiths, E. (B'y St Edm'ds)
McCrea, Rev William


Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)
McCurley, Mrs Anna


Ground, Patrick
McCusker, Harold


Grylls, Michael
Macfarlane, Neil


Gummer, John Selwyn
MacGregor, John


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)


Hampson, Dr Keith
Maclean, David John.


Hanley, Jeremy
Macmillan, Rt Hon M.


Hannam, John
McQuarrie, Albert


Harvey, Robert
Maginnis, Ken


Haselhurst, Alan
Major, John


Hawkins, C. (High Peak)
Malins, Humfrey


Hawksley, Warren
Malone, Gerald






Maples, John
Silvester, Fred


Marlow, Antony
Sims, Roger


Mather, Carol
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Maude, Francis
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Speller, Tony


Merchant, Piers
Spence, John


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Spencer, D.


Miller, Hal (B'grove)
Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)


Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Mitchell, David (NW Hants)
Stanley, John


Moate, Roger
Steen, Anthony


Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Stern, Michael


Morris, M. (N'hampton, S)
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)


Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)
Stevens, Martin (Fulham)


Moynihan, Hon C.
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Murphy, Christopher
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Neale, Gerrard
Stradling Thomas, J.


Needham, Richard
Sumberg, David


Neubert, Michael
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Newton, Tony
Temple-Morris, Peter


Nicholls, Patrick
Terlezki, Stefan


Norris, Steven
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Onslow, Cranley
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Oppenheim, Philip
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


Osborn, Sir John
Thornton, Malcolm


Ottaway, Richard
Thurnham, Peter


Page, Richard (Herts SW)
Tracey, Richard


Pawsey, James
Trotter, Neville


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Twinn, Dr Ian


Powell, Rt Hon J. E. (S Down)
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Powell, William (Corby)
Viggers, Peter


Powley, John
Waddington, David


Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Proctor, K. Harvey
Waller, Gary


Raffan, Keith
Watson, John


Rhodes James, Robert
Watts, John


Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Wells, Bowen (Hertford)


Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Wheeler, John


Robinson, Mark (N'port W)
Wilkinson, John


Robinson, P. (Belfast E)
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Roe, Mrs Marion
Winterton, Nicholas


Rossi, Sir Hugh
Wolfson, Mark


Rowe, Andrew
Wood, Timothy


Ryder, Richard
Woodcock, Michael


Sackville, Hon Thomas
Yeo, Tim


Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Sayeed, Jonathan



Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Tellers for the Ayes:


Shelton, William (Streatham)
Mr. David Hurd and


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Mr. Archie Hamilton.





NOES


Alton, David
Lewis, Terence (Worsley)


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Loyden, Edward


Barron, Kevin
McGuire, Michael


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)
McKelvey, William


Bermingham, Gerald
Mackenzie, Rt Hon Gregor


Boyes, Roland
McNamara, Kevin


Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)
McWilliam, John


Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)
Madden, Max


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Marek, Dr John


Canavan, Dennis
Maxton, John


Clay, Robert
Maynard, Miss Joan


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)
Meadowcroft, Michael


Cohen, Harry
Mikardo, Ian


Cook, Frank (Stockton North)
Nellist, David


Corbyn, Jeremy
Parry, Robert


Cowans, Harry
Patchett, Terry


Craigen, J. M.
Pike, Peter


Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)
Prescott, John


Dewar, Donald
Redmond, M.


Dobson, Frank
Richardson, Ms Jo


Dormand, Jack
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Dubs, Alfred
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)


Eastham, Ken
Rogers, Allan


Evans, John (St. Helens N)
Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)


Fatchett, Derek
Sedgemore, Brian


Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)
Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)


Fisher, Mark
Skinner, Dennis


Flannery, Martin
Smith, C.(Isl'ton S &amp; F'bury)


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Snape, Peter


Godman, Dr Norman
Soley, Clive


Golding, John
Strang, Gavin


Hamilton, James (M'well N)
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Harman, Ms Harriet
Thorne, Stan (Preston)


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Warden, Gareth (Gower)


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Wareing, Robert


Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)
Welsh, Michael


Home Robertson, John
Winnick, David


Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)



Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Tellers for the Noes:


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Mr. Frank Haynes and


Leighton, Ronald
Mr. Don Dixon.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — A30 (Cornwall)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Mather.]

Mr. David Penhaligon: It gives me some pleasure to be able to speak on the problems affecting the A30 both on the way to, and within, my county of Cornwall. The Minister is familiar with the argument that I shall present. It is a simple appeal to the Government to rethink their strategy, which appears to be to build the road to wide single-carriage standard.
The A30 is the county's main artery. It enables us to communicate with the economic centres of Britain and Europe. It is incredibly important to those who live in the far south-west that the road should be built to the standard that is common in the rest of the country.
I recognise that progress has been made in the past 20 years in improving Cornwall's communications. My dear father believed that the journey to London was a two-day trip, and even trips through Staines seemed to take an hour or so. We now have a motorway to Exeter. The fact that it goes via Bristol adds 60 miles to the trip, but we make no complaint about that. Furthermore, we have a dual carriageway that terminates about half-way between Okehampton and Exeter. From that point, the route is a mixture of reasonable roads, unsatisfactory roads and— in one or two places—roads which, forming as they do the main artery of my part of the country, can only be described as unbelievable. The A30 has been described as Britain's longest lane. That position should be improved.
Some decisions have been made, and we welcome them. The dual carriageway will be continued from where it currently terminates to a point some five miles on the Cornwall side of Okehampton. However, when I reach that point on my journey home, it is still 65 miles to Truro and 85 miles to Land's End. Most people in the metropolis would regard those distances as substantial journeys, but for those who live in the south-west they represent only the last leg of the journey home.
The proposal seems to be that there should be a single carriageway everywhere else, except for places where a dual carriageway already exists, and short dual carriageways round Blackwater, Jamaica Inn and Long Rock.
The stretches of road that are of special concern are the 12 miles from the end of the dual carriageway at Okehampton to Launceston, eight miles from the Truro side of Launceston to Bolventor and the bypasses around Summercourt, Mitchell, Zelah and Indian Queens — a total distance of 28 miles. Twenty-five per cent. of the total route is still not even on the programme, so we are a long way from an A30 of reasonable standard.
I do not believe that any firm decisions have been made, but I understand that the Government are leaning towards providing a single-carriageway road for that 28-mile stretch. Those who are concerned about Cornwall's economic future can only describe that provision as totally unsatisfactory.
The problem is that we must satisfy the COBA formula — cost benefit analysis. The Minister is a statistician, and by training I am an engineer. I sometimes think that these man-made formulae are elevated to a significance

and importance that they do not justify. Indeed, they sometimes permit decisions to be made that overrule common sense.
Three points are worth raising, and I ask the Minister to investigate whether the present formula is applied correctly.
First, the A30 is the main road to Cornwall. I am sure that that the hon. Member for Cornwall, South-East (Mr. Hicks), who is present for the debate, will confirm that those who live in Liskeard look to the A38 as their route to the county but that everyone else regards the A30 as the ideal way home. That is not surprising. After all, it is 10 miles shorter via the A30 than the A38, and one avoids the inevitable difficulties created by the great city of Plymouth.
The COBA formula underestimates the transfer of traffic that will take place from the A38 to the A30 if that road is built to a satisfactory standard. Indeed, I believe that all the traffic going into Cornwall beyond Liskeard would use the A30, if it were built to a sensible and reasonable standard. I therefore argue that the formula underestimates the extent of the transfer.
Secondly, the formula seems totally to underestimate the importance of the tourist industry. It is true that for eight months of the year, traffic flows into Cornwall are not that high, but for the other four months they are unbelievable. It is preposterous to produce a formula which effectively tells someone jammed in Cornwall traffic in July and August that he should not be concerned because had he come in December he would have experienced no traffic problems at all. These averages are a lunacy.
I concede that for most parts of the country that do not experience these great seasonal traffic changes, the formula may well be sensible, but it does not make much sense in areas such as mine.
Thirdly, in this marvellous formula which has been elevated above all common sense, no consideration appears to have been given to the overall economic impact on the area. Each decision is made relative to how much more quickly people can travel, and there may be a recognition of the environmental impact on a village, but the correct weighting is not given to the overall economic impact.
The Minister does not need me to tell her that Cornwall has its difficulties. It has the lowest average wage of any county in England and easily has the highest unemployment figures in the south-west. Until a few years ago, it had one of the highest unemployment figures an the entire country. Those who live in the far south-west believe that without a modern communications system, there can be no relative increase in Cornwall's prosperity or any relative economic recovery for the county.
As a Member of Parliament, one talks to industrialists who may be flirting with the idea of bringing their enterprises to Cornwall. They have even approached us in the House to get some advice. They are worried most by Cornwall's sheer remoteness.
They do not ask, "How many miles is it?" They keep asking, "How long does it take to get there?" They are not being unreasonable. English Industrial Estates, which is doing good work in the county, will confirm that more industrialists do not come to Cornwall because of the difficulties associated with remoteness than for any other


reason. Indeed, some of the county's own industries, such as farming and china clay, are facing development difficulties for that reason.
Falmouth docks is one of the great natural harbours of Europe, if not the western world. One cannot but believe that its development is stifled—indeed, nearly strangled —because once a ship has docked it is not easy to get anywhere else.
However, the greatest effect is on tourism, which provides 13 per cent. of the employment in my county. Every year, I admire the activities of the AA and RAC, who organise their great campaigns in Devon and Cornwall to tell people to travel via the holiday route. Can hon. Members imagine what effect that has on people who are considering spending a holiday in Cornwall? If the AA and RAC are prepared to go to all that trouble to divert traffic, it is clear that a real problem exists. Many people believe that if the single carriageway is built, the services of the AA and the RAC will still be needed, because we shall still have substantial traffic problems.
This year, the Devon and Cornwall police, who have a good record in community affairs and concern for the well-being of the people who visit my part of the world and of those who live there, gave free coffee to people who got as far as Indian Queens, because they were worried about drivers' fatigue.
How much extra will all this cost? The answer is £15 million. To have a single carriageway will cost a useful sum, and it will cost £15 million extra to build a dual carriageway in the present programme up to 1989. That is £3 million a year. It is about two hours and 51 minutes of the PSBR. It does not sound a very large sum.
If we have dual carriageway standards, the problem will be over. There will be no need to do any more. People say to me, "Well, if the traffic flows later prove it necessary, we could then build a dual carriageway." If single carriageways are built, one fears that they will stay that way, certainly for my lifetime.
The A30 is our strategic road. It is our contact with the economic centres of the nation. As I said before, without this improvement, there can be no relative improvement in Cornwall's economic position. I therefore plead with the Minister to allow common sense to prevail, in preference to this formula. It must surely be common sense to accept that the more remote regions of Britain have as much right as other regions to expect eventually to be connected to the nation's communications by roads built to modern standards.
If the Minister cannot be persuaded to change her mind in the fairly near future, I fear that Cornwall will feel that it is getting second-rate treatment, with second-rate roads to what those of us who live there regard as the finest part of the United Kingdom. Clearly, the decisions are not unchangeable, and I ask, in particular, that the three aspects that I raised be added to the formula. I ask the Minister to promise us to have another think. I would be pleased if she would say that she had already changed her mind, but I should be happy with at least the promise of a rethink.
The Minister can save herself a great deal of work by agreeing with what I have said this evening. The problem will not go away. I suspect that she will have delegations from the county council, the Members of Parliament, the National Farmers Union and businesses in my county. We

believe that we need a dual carriageway. We see that everyone else has one. The simple question, in the final analysis, is: why have the Government decided not to build one for Cornwall, ever? That is the reality of the Government's decision.

12 midnight

The Minister of State, Department of Transport (Mrs. Lynda Chalker): There are several Liberal Members present who are obviously taking their holidays in Cornwall and swelling the tourist industry. I congratulate the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon) on securing the Adjournment debate tonight. It is obvious that he has kept his hon. Friends here to enable him to push his case even harder.
I think the hon. Gentleman will acknowledge that in the 22 months since I have been at the Department of Transport I have had more meetings about west country roads and the problems of Devon and Cornwall than about any other area in the country. I am well aware of all that the hon. Gentleman has said, because the issues have been raised on many previous occasions, the latest as recently as last week when Members from a neighbouring county were talking to me about their problems, during which they mentioned the problems connected with roads in Devon and Cornwall.
I welcome the opportunity to discuss the proposed standards for the A30 from Exeter to Penzance. The Department shares the general concern of those in the area that it should have good and adequate roads for the traffic that is to use them. The Cornwall county council and many district and parish councils in the area have joined hon. Members in expressing concern about the sections where it is proposed to make improvements but maintain a single carriageway road.
There is little that I can add to what I have already said over the past 12 months. However, there are one or two remarks that I wish to address to the hon. Gentleman because he may not have personally heard them over recent months, at least not direct from me. First, we recognise the need for good access to Cornwall for industry in Cornwall as well as tourism. That is why the A30 has top priority among west country roads as a road to be improved.
The M4 and M5 provide good communications from Exeter to the rest of the country. The A303 in the southwest has been dualled in many sections and more dualling is planned. That will help in getting to and from Devon and Cornwall. The A38 has been dualled from Exeter to Plymouth and dualling is under construction from the northern outskirts of Plymouth to the Tamar bridge. Proposals have been published for improvement westwards from the bridge through Saltash. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cornwall, South-East (Mr. Hicks) knows, the public inquiry is just starting its deliberations.
Of the 114 miles of the A30 between Exeter and Penzance, one third have already been dualled. I have recently made announcements of decisions concerning the Okehampton bypass and the Tongue End cross to Whiddon down improvement, which is stage 3 of the Exeter-Okehampton improvement. These decisions and other schemes will increase the dualling to almost half of the 114 miles. A further 38 miles are to be improved to wide single carriageway, making over 90 miles of improved


carriageway. These improvements will transform conditions on the A30, as improvements over shorter distances have improved roads in other parts of the country.
Much of what the hon. Gentleman said was not new. I have read Cornwall county council's booklet "Road to Prosperity" and I appreciate the arguments that have been advanced, but the booklet does not reflect the complete picture. There are great benefits to be gained from the current and proposed improvements to the A30 which I think that the hon. Gentleman has underestimated. I think that he is underestimating the proposals that are in hand.
In recent years we have adopted the highway link design of roads, which are especially important in Cornwall's terrain. The old design standards, which I think the hon. Gentleman has in the back of his mind, and which were used in the 1970s, aimed at providing a high standard of service for the driver. They provided continuous opportunities for overtaking. However, on long left-hand bends the practice fell short of the theory. In general the cost was high and the benefit was not always as great as we would have liked. That is why we changed to the highway link design standards in 1981. We wished to provide a good quality driving standard with opportunities for overtaking clearly indicated on a road which was interspaced with somewhat tighter bends where overtaking would be prohibited.
The effect is that a slight drop in driver convenience is very much outweighed by reductions in cost and the impact on the environment. Consequently, we can do more for fewer resources. The hon. Gentleman knows how important I believe it is to give more bypasses to such places as Zelah, Mitchell, Summercourt and Indian Queens. Since that introduction in 1981, not many roads have been finished to highway link design standards. However, as more schemes are completed, the effect of obtaining more suitable roads for our money should be seen.
I want to spend a moment or two on the process of economic evaluation. Cost-benefit analysis is important, but much misunderstood. It is only part of the consideration. It is part of our framework for taking investment decisions, but it does not override our discretion, and I shall not allow it to become a rod for our own backs. It must be common sense to have a consistent basis on which to work, otherwise there would be inequities between different parts of the country.
When we compare on an equivalent basis the costs of the proposal with the benefits in time saved and accidents avoided, we come up with the COBA comparison We convert the time savings and reductions in the number of accidents to financial benefits, using factors which represent reasonable values in, for example, business travel or injury accident. We have to work from averages. We have tried in every way to avoid any subjective bias. We continually carry out research to keep those figures up to date. We can then come to a view on the benefit that will be involved in the case of any particular road, and compare it with the cost. There is nothing mystical about it. It is a process which is updated and which seeks to include all the factors concerned. We have to decide what the positive and negative effects are of undertaking any of the proposed actions.

Mr. Penhaligon: Will the Minister refer to the COBA formula, which deals with the macroeconomic effects of building high standard roads for the remoter parts of Britain?

Mrs. Chalker: The hon. Gentleman is well aware that time saved by the building of a new road is part of the consideration. But other savings have to be considered. Taking the land that would be needed for the higher standard of road could prove to be a "disbenefit". It may be land that could be better used in a highway link design than in a dual carriageway. Indeed, there is evidence to support that.
The hon. Gentleman got his costs for dualling wrong. Although I accept that he wants the best roads possible for his area, the cost must be considered. They cannot be put completely on one side. Our COBA calculations justify considerable improvement of the A30 in Cornwall. The Department is giving that priority. However, we must not exceed those costs if we are not to deny another area— perhaps even part of the hon. Gentleman's area — another bypass that it needs. Our resources are finite. I have to weigh carefully the claims for increased provision beyond what is absolutely necessary and proven.
If I were to go further, as the hon. Gentleman wishes, and go beyond the COBA analysis and what is justified and provide dual carriageways throughout, despite the fact that there is no traffic need throughout the year, I would deprive other communities in other parts of the country of any form of relief. That would not be fair.
I told the hon. Gentleman that he had underestimated the costs. We propose to spend £50 million on the A30 in Devon, west of Exeter, and £42 million in Cornwall. We are fully justified in doing that to improve 90 miles of that 114 miles of road. I am satisfied that the proposals represent good value for money. All the schemes on our present plans give us a positive return. The hon. Gentleman may ask "Why not spend more?" He mentioned £15 million to dual throughout from Exeter to Penzance— [Interruption.] If the hon. Gentleman did not say that, he certainly mentioned the figure of £15 million as the additional cost. The additional cost is, however, £30 million for the stretch which he would like to be made into dual carriageway, and which the Department proposes to build to wide single carriageway standards.
If we converted those single carriageway schemes to dual, we would be delaying the construction of the bypasses, because it could not be done within the time scale. We would have the further difficulty of justifying the additional land take. We would be open to the ceriticism of taking land out of agricultural use unnecessarily, and that factor has been raised at many public inquiries, particularly in the country areas throughout the land.

Mr. Robert Hicks: Irrespective of the cost comparisons, does my hon. Friend agree that, in the early 1970s, most of the road improvements were on a dual carriageway basis in Devon and Cornwall? As volumes of traffic and projected volumes have increased since then, how does she justify the fact that it was possible to do it then but apparently that is no longer the case? To defend this argument to people who use those roads is an impossibility when a road built in 1984 is single carriageway compared with one that was built as dual carriageway in my constituency in 1974.

Mrs. Chalker: My hon. Friend must realise that the volumes of traffic on the more northerly parts of the southwest peninsula are much higher than beyond Bodmin, and certainly so when one gets past the turnoff to Newquay, because it is at those points that the traffic volumes decrease dramatically from the traffic volumes mentioned by my hon. Friend.
As I have said tonight and on previous occasions, we have dualling around Okehampton in Devon and, indeed, even down beyond Bodmin. This was justified by the traffic volumes. Once the traffic tends to split up at Carland Cross, for instance, at the turnoff for Truro, the traffic volumes do not justify the dualling in the way that my hon. Friend mentioned in the scheme that bypasses Bodmin on the A30. It is the traffic on the road, and how much traffic there is likely to be from developments, that must guide the information put into the formula.
As I said to the hon. Member for Truro, we consider such factors as the amount of tourism and the growth in certain industries. If they were not considered as factors, it would be not a wide single carriageway, but a normal single carriageway that would be proposed. I am convinced from the data that I have seen on the A30 road going down beyond Bodmin that the proposals for that area and, indeed, from Launceston onwards, are right for the road. I do not see that I would be justified in building to a dual carriageway standard a road for which there is not the volume of traffic that there is elsewhere in the country, thus denying to another community a bypass which it very much needs.
Finally, I wish to deal with whether, at a later stage, if the traffic volume justified it, we would be able to provide a dual carriageway. That is always possible, but whether one takes the land now is a very different question. This would have to be justified at public inquiries on the scheme.
Similarly, whether one builds bridges wider now to accommodate a second carriageway later is a very vexed question, and I can only say that the experience of the Department is that it would only be in exceptional circumstances, to overcome specific problems, that one would take to a public inquiry proposals to build bridges substantially wider, and take land substantially in excess of what was needed for the standard that was proposed for the road.
While I am not unsympathetic to the hon. Gentleman, I have to say that, on the evidence before me, I cannot conclude that the Department is being other than wise in seeking to give him the best roads that are justified by the volume of traffic. I want to see the benefits from the improvements come forward as fast as possible. We have already set ourselves a very ambitious task to open up communications from Cornwall with the rest of the country.
I want to make sure that the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown), for example, gets the bypasses in his county. If we were to provide dual carriageways all the way down through Cornwall, I must tell the hon. Member for Truro that some of his hon. Friends would be disappointed, because we have available only a limited amount of resources.
I assure the hon. Gentleman that if circumstances change to justify a higher standard while we are still at the early stages of preparation for some of the schemes, that higher standard will be adopted. But I remain satisfied that, on the evidence now before us, the plans will give a good return and provide a road which will cater adequately for the traffic which is expected to use it way into the early years of the next century.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at sixteen minutes past Twelve o'clock.